Aretas V

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
maryhelena
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Aretas V

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:08 am Doudna's words are sufficient to neutralize your objection:
In that context Roman control of Damascus could have involved Nabataean forces under Roman command.

Again, you have to face the strongest evidence supporting a thesis, not marginal details, in order to sound caustic about the proponent of said thesis (as it seems to be your intention here about Doudna's views).
It seems my reply got lost in cyberspace - or I hit the wrong button and deleted it....anyway, the reply was not long...

----------------------

I'm interested in history. There is no historical evidence for a King Aretas V. Consequently, that an assumed King Aretas V 'could have' done xyz is jumping the gun....first establish historicity for King Aretas V - then run with the 'could have' scenarios.....
Last edited by maryhelena on Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Aretas V

Post by Charles Wilson »

maryhelena wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:56 amBoth Joshua and Paul take up their roles after the death of a forerunner. i.e. Moses and Jesus. Jericho was the start of Joshua's campaign to secure the Promised Land. Damascus was the start of Paul's campaign to the Gentiles, the foreigners, to bring them into the spiritual Promised Land.
I suppose my Sarcasm was laid on a little too thick. Oh, well...

All of the above is quite True in our Modern Understanding. It even has a Name: TRANSVALUATION. See: Nietzsche. As we look a little deeper, however, we find, as you correctly point out, maryhelena, Hasmonean History. I see more of that than you to want to see but that's OK. The Hasmoneans were a part of a Larger History which is only now being examined - The Mishmarot Priesthood, with the Temple Apparatus, the Organization of the Priesthood, the Settlements in Galilee and so on.

I assert that this is found all over the NT.

If we strip all of that out, however, we find that there is something left and that is encompassed by The Roman Thesis. Are there Historical Markers for the ascension of the Flavians at the expense of the Julio-Claudians? Of course there are. Since these markers are there, it is a fair question to ask if there were other Historical Figures associated with the Flavian ascension. "Mucianus" is one such associated Character.

Who was Mucianus? It really is "low hanging fruit", if anyone cares to look. You don't have to be a Parallelomaniac to see it either. He was very aggressive in the Claudian Court and he paid some sort of price for his aggressiveness. He may have been made a eunuch.

If he was the Template for "Paul" - and I believe he was - then the character "Paul" may have reflected this fact as well.

"OH, NO!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, AS A EUNUCH!!!"

Yes, you can. If you Transvalue all of this, you cannot but then you have lost Hasmonean History and all the rest of it.
Yet, and this is where I agree with you maryhelena, the Hasmonean History is actually, really there.

So is "Mucianus". Someone is telling us something there as well.
lsayre
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Aretas V

Post by lsayre »

Charles Wilson wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:33 am Who was Mucianus? It really is "low hanging fruit", if anyone cares to look. You don't have to be a Parallelomaniac to see it either. He was very aggressive in the Claudian Court and he paid some sort of price for his aggressiveness. He may have been made a eunuch.

If he was the Template for "Paul" - and I believe he was - then the character "Paul" may have reflected this fact as well.

"OH, NO!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, AS A EUNUCH!!!"

Yes, you can. If you Transvalue all of this, you cannot but then you have lost Hasmonean History and all the rest of it.
Yet, and this is where I agree with you maryhelena, the Hasmonean History is actually, really there.

So is "Mucianus". Someone is telling us something there as well.
So as to not derail this thread, would you be willing to start a separate thread detailing why you equate Mucianus with Paul?
Post Reply