https://earlywritings.com/forum/
1. I naively thought that I was through with this site...maryhelena wrote:ghost wrote:Why do the writers make them say this?maryhelena wrote:[td]Pilate says to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests responded, [bgcolor=yellow]"We have no king but Caesar."[/bgcolor] At that time therefore he handed him over to them, to be crucified[/td]
As Pilate hands him over to be crucified, Jesus himself removes all doubt as to who is truly responsible for his death: “The one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin,” Jesus tells Pilate, personally absolving him of all guilt by laying the blame squarely on the Jewish religious authorities. John then adds one final, unforgivable insult to a Jewish nation that, at the time, was on the verge of a full-scale insurrection, by attributing to them the most foul, the most blasphemous piece of pure heresy that any Jew in first-century Palestine could conceivably utter. When asked by Pilate what he should do with “their king,” the Jews reply, “We have no king but Caesar!” (John 19:1–16). Thus, a story concocted by Mark strictly for evangelistic purposes to shift the blame for Jesus’s death away from Rome is stretched with the passage of time to the point of absurdity, becoming in the process the basis for two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism.
Aslan, Reza (2013-08-08). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 2711-2716). Saqi. Kindle Edition.
One very good reason not to take the gospel story literally; one very good reason not to take this story as history.
Maryhelena studies the Hasmoneans. I happen to believe the Scope of her work with Antigonus is too narrow but... The entire Hasmonean family is subject for intensive study because that family represents a great deal of what was stolen. Which is why everyone should re-read what she writes above. Which brings us to #3:One very good reason not to take the gospel story literally; one very good reason not to take this story as history.
If there is any History here - and there may not be, if this is "History" of a "Jesus" character - it may be found in an examination as to "Who in the Jerusalem Community would give allegiance to Caesar?". Now, I think I know the answer to this but a moments consideration would at least lead one to consider that it was made by people entrenched in the bureaucracy of the appointed religious hierarchy, loyal to Rome (Post Herod, I would think...). Here is the most tragic irony of it all: The original Assault IS on the Religious Hierarchy appointed and/or approved by Rome. This Assault is led led by the Hasmoneans, of the House of Eleazar.. However, with just the right amount of Smear, the Story of the corrupt Hierarchy, gets changed. The retrograde Herodian Priesthood, loyal to Rome, kills God's Son. Then, the swerve. This created "Jesus Character" actually advocates KINDNESS to Rome! It's the filthy JEWS who killed the Son of God. "Doesn't the Priesthood represent the Jews? So, it must be the Jews who killed God's Son..."Why do the writers make them say this?
It's easy to see why and the answer takes care of the early "Church Fathers", who could not even agree on a Time Line for this Mythical Son of God. They are writing for a New Religion. Many of the writers are writing from positions inside the Roman Court!Why do the writers make them say this?
The Crow wrote:Was not this Ananius flogged by the Romans? He was released as being nothing more than a mad man. Didn't he die during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock by a catapult? I don't see the connection?"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.
ghost wrote:There's obviously no crucifixion there; so the crucifixion must come from somewhere else.
It seems likely the last real King of the Jews, Antigonus, was crucified; as argued by maryhelena -The Crow wrote:Primary difference being is that Jesus of Nazareth was executed and Jesus ben Ananias was not. Ananias was simply released back into society as nothing more than a mad man.
It is possible aspects of narratives about Jesus ben Ananias/Ananius, Caesar, and Antigonus were incorporated in the development of a human-on-earth Jesus-composite-characterStephan Huller wrote:Jesus was a Jewish angel for Justin among others. That's not my idea. It is a well recognized ancient position within Christianity and it has relevance at a forum devoted to ancient Christianity.
Charles Wilson wrote:If there is any History here - and there may not be, if this is "History" of a "Jesus" character - it may be found in an examination as to "Who in the Jerusalem Community would give allegiance to Caesar?" ... a moments consideration would at least lead one to consider that it was made by people entrenched in the bureaucracy of the appointed religious hierarchy, loyal to Rome (post-Herod, I would think...). Here is the most tragic irony of it all: The original Assault IS on the Religious Hierarchy appointed and/or approved by Rome. This Assault is led led by the Hasmoneans, of the House of Eleazar.. However, with just the right amount of Smear, the Story of the corrupt Hierarchy, gets changed. The retrograde Herodian Priesthood, loyal to Rome, kills God's Son. Then, the swerve. This created "Jesus Character" actually advocates KINDNESS to Rome! It's the filthy JEWS who killed the Son of God. "Doesn't the Priesthood represent the Jews? So, it must be the Jews who killed God's Son..."3. Why do the writers make them say this?
4. Then, the Transvaluation. The Priesthood, Pure and Clean, with no blemish, is replaced with a new high priest, one with scars and a ripped open side, who suffered and was Ritually Unclean.It's easy to see why and the answer takes care of the early "Church Fathers", who could not even agree on a Time Line for this Mythical Son of God. They are writing for a New Religion. Many of the writers are writing from positions inside the Roman Court!Why do the writers make them say this?
.
Hi Mac. This from the post:MrMacSon wrote:The Crow wrote:Was not this Ananius flogged by the Romans? He was released as being nothing more than a mad man. Didn't he die during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock by a catapult? I don't see the connection?"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.ghost wrote:There's obviously no crucifixion there; so the crucifixion must come from somewhere else.It seems likely the last real King of the Jews, Antigonus, was crucified as argued by maryhelena -The Crow wrote:Primary difference being is that Jesus of Nazareth was executed and Jesus ben Ananias was not. Ananias was simply released back into society as nothing more than a mad man.
This would also fit with the proposition that the Jesus of the NT is a composition figure - where a human character was developed from Gnostic-like notions of a celestial being or angel -
It is possible aspects of narratives about Jesus ben Ananias/Ananius, Caesar, and Antigonus were incorporated in the development of a human-on-earth Jesus-storyStephan Huller wrote:Jesus was a Jewish angel for Justin among others. That's not my idea. It is a well recognized ancient position within Christianity and it has relevance at a forum devoted to ancient Christianity.
.
OK which one do we go with here? Josephus says Marc Antony beheaded him and the Roman Historian Cassius says he was crucified. Then we find Plutarch saying he was beheaded by Antony.Antigonus II Mattathias
Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "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."[4] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[5]
In a story about suffering and salvation (especially salvation-for-suffering)?? ...The Crow wrote:OK which one do we go with here? [beheading? or crucifixion?]
OK, makes sense to me, thanks.MrMacSon wrote:In a story about suffering and salvation (especially salvation-for-suffering)?? ...The Crow wrote:OK which one do we go with here? [beheading? or crucifixion?]
... go for the suffering ie. crucifixion ..... 'crucifiction'
Also crucified by Mark Antony:The Crow wrote:OK which one do we go with here? Josephus says Marc Antony beheaded him and the Roman Historian Cassius says he was crucified. Then we find Plutarch saying he was beheaded by Antony.
