neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:13 pm
maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:05 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:04 pm
maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:17 am
Oh.. I did not notice any answers to the questions I asked you. A one sided questioning is not debate....
I wasn't thinking we were debating at all. In my mind I thought we were discussing through exchanges of ideas. That's what I was aiming for, at any rate. When one party has their say the other party may respond to some aspect of what was said rather than everything in order to keep the discussion at a manageable level as they see it.
Well.... whatever this exchange was about it was one sided with you throwing questions at me yet ignoring my questions to you. Poor show, Neil.
Okay -- I didn't know how to answer some of your questions profitably but I did answer what I took to be your main one: "So?" But I can see how not responding directly to all of your questions can make the exchange feel like a waste of time for you.
You wrote:
maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:23 am
I have concluded that the gospel story of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is a reflection upon the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus....
So .....??
Why no comment on what I have concluded if you ''don't see any difference in that respect between what you conclude and what I conclude.''..
Did you find what I concluded interesting ? How does what I have concluded regarding Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus - that these three literary figures are reflecting the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus. How does what I have concluded add to what you yourself have concluded ?
Yes and no. The problem I had was that I could not see how an author would write about a man he called a Cyrenian carrying Jesus' cross and having two sons somewhere "off-stage" and base that person on Aristobulus II who had two sons, Alexander and Antigonous. Simon in the story is not crucified and does not die at all as far as the story goes; nor do his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, die in the narrative. So how can we establish any imaginative link with Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus? I don't see any link at all part from one of the sons being named Alexander.
ah - I see you deleted your original reply post - (to which I did reply but it failed to post re you had your deleted post).
Why the connection between Simon from Cyrene and his two sons to Aristobulus II and his two sons?
Context: crucifixion. Simon carried the cross. Gospel story is fiction re no historical Jesus figure. History? A historical man connected to a crucifixion, an execution by Roman agents, a man with two sons.
History:
Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]
Antigonus II Mattathias
(Josephus also tells a story about a man with two sons - the two sons of Judas the Galilean being crucified.)
Two crucifixion stories that relate to a man connected to crucifixion. A man with two sons. Turn the page - or click on Wikipedia - and history does relate the story of a historical man, a man with two sons - both sons executed via Roman agents. Aristobulus II and his two sons.
By all means identify another historical man connected to a crucifixion by Roman agents; a man with two sons. I'm all ears.
viewtopic.php?t=1274
I don't see how identifying the three names of Simon, Alexander and Rufus with those three (Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus) adds any meaning or interpretative value to the gospel narrative.
The proposed identification allows Hasmonean history to be center stage in an investigation into the origins of the gospel Jesus story.
''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)
Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist.
What is it Neil, about Hasmonean history, that fails to resonate with you, that fails as a source able to offer insights into the gospel Jesus story? Jewish nationalism? Much safer I suppose to concentrate on post 70 c.e. when Jewish nationalism has been kicked sideways by Rome.