Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up

dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Titus Flavius Josephus was a 1st century Roman-Jewish scholar and historian. He was born in Jerusalem in 37CE. Josephus recorded Jewish history and his famous book "The Jewish War" or "The Wars of the Jews" (circa 75CE) was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem (and the Second Temple).

Josephus was fond of mini-biographies of famous (or infamous) people including one Jesus ben Ananias. This Jesus came into Jerusalem around 62CE and went around prophesying the city's destruction:

But a further portent was even more alarming. Four years before the war, when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity, there came to the feast at which it is the custom of all Jews to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant, who suddenly began to cry out, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people." Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on his lips. Some of the leading citizens, incensed at these ill-omened words, arrested the fellow and severely chastised him. But he, without a word on his own behalf or for the private ear of those who smote him, only continued his cries as before. Thereupon, the magistrates, supposing, as was indeed the case, that the man was under some supernatural impulse, brought him before the Roman governor; there, although flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither sued for mercy nor shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations into his utterances, responded to each lashing with "Woe to Jerusalem!" When Albinus, the governor, asked him who and whence he was and why he uttered these cries, he answered him never a word, but unceasingly reiterated his dirge over the city, until Albinus pronounced him a maniac and let him go. During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached nor was seen talking to any of the citizens, but daily, like a prayer that he had conned, repeated his lament, "Woe to Jerusalem!" He neither cursed any of those who beat him from day to day, nor blessed those who offered him food: to all men that melancholy presage was his one reply. His cries were loudest at the festivals. So for seven years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until in the siege, having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, "Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple," as he added a last word, "and woe to me also," a stone hurled from the ballista struck and killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still upon his lips he passed away.
--- Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the historian Flavius Josephus' The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus
2 Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. Mk 14.2 = JW 6.301
3 Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. Mk 11.15-17 = JW 6.301
4 During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. Jer. 7-11 in Mk; Jer. 7.34 in JW
5 Both then preach daily in the temple. Mk 14.49 = JW 6.306
6 Both declared 'woe' unto Judea or the Jews. Mk 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309
7 Both predict the temple will be destroyed. Mk 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309
8 Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. Mk 14.43 = 6.302
9 Both are accused of speaking against the temple. Mk 14.58 = JW 6.302
10 Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. Mk 14.60 = JW 6.302
11 Both are beaten by the Jews. Mk 14.65 = JW 6.302
12 Then both are taken to the Roman governor. Pilate in Mk 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302
13 Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. Mk 15.2-4 = JW 6.305
14 During which both are asked to identify themselves. Mk 15. 2 = JW 6.305
15 And yet again neither says anything in his defense. Mk 15 3-5 = JW 6.305
16 Both are then beaten by the Romans. Mk 15.15 = JW 6.304
17 In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
18 ....but doesn't (Mark)....but does (JW). Mk 15 6-15 vs. JW 6.305
19 Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery). Mk 15.34 = JW 6.308-309
20 Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. Mk 15.34 = JW 6.309
21 Both die with a loud cry. Mk 15.37 = JW 6.309

Any reasonable person looking at this table of the parallels between the two accounts would accept that this is beyond mere coincidence. Therefore Mark either independently knew of Jesus ben Ananias and incorporated his story into the Passion Narrative or he borrowed key elements of the story from Josephus.

The million dollar question follows. If Jesus was an actual historical person, why would Mark need to incorporate someone else's life into the account of Jesus of Nazareth in his gospel? Will the real Jesus please stand up.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 12:03:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
Titus Flavius Josephus was a 1st century Roman-Jewish scholar and historian. He was born in Jerusalem in 37CE. Josephus recorded Jewish history and his famous book "The Jewish War" or "The Wars of the Jews" (circa 75CE) was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem (and the Second Temple).

Josephus was fond of mini-biographies of famous (or infamous) people including one Jesus ben Ananias. This Jesus came into Jerusalem around 62CE and went around prophesying the city's destruction:

But a further portent was even more alarming. Four years before the war, when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity, there came to the feast at which it is the custom of all Jews to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant, who suddenly began to cry out, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people." Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on his lips. Some of the leading citizens, incensed at these ill-omened words, arrested the fellow and severely chastised him. But he, without a word on his own behalf or for the private ear of those who smote him, only continued his cries as before. Thereupon, the magistrates, supposing, as was indeed the case, that the man was under some supernatural impulse, brought him before the Roman governor; there, although flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither sued for mercy nor shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations into his utterances, responded to each lashing with "Woe to Jerusalem!" When Albinus, the governor, asked him who and whence he was and why he uttered these cries, he answered him never a word, but unceasingly reiterated his dirge over the city, until Albinus pronounced him a maniac and let him go. During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached nor was seen talking to any of the citizens, but daily, like a prayer that he had conned, repeated his lament, "Woe to Jerusalem!" He neither cursed any of those who beat him from day to day, nor blessed those who offered him food: to all men that melancholy presage was his one reply. His cries were loudest at the festivals. So for seven years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until in the siege, having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, "Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple," as he added a last word, "and woe to me also," a stone hurled from the ballista struck and killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still upon his lips he passed away.
--- Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the historian Flavius Josephus' The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus
2 Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. Mk 14.2 = JW 6.301
3 Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. Mk 11.15-17 = JW 6.301
4 During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. Jer. 7-11 in Mk; Jer. 7.34 in JW
5 Both then preach daily in the temple. Mk 14.49 = JW 6.306
6 Both declared 'woe' unto Judea or the Jews. Mk 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309
7 Both predict the temple will be destroyed. Mk 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309
8 Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. Mk 14.43 = 6.302
9 Both are accused of speaking against the temple. Mk 14.58 = JW 6.302
10 Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. Mk 14.60 = JW 6.302
11 Both are beaten by the Jews. Mk 14.65 = JW 6.302
12 Then both are taken to the Roman governor. Pilate in Mk 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302
13 Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. Mk 15.2-4 = JW 6.305
14 During which both are asked to identify themselves. Mk 15. 2 = JW 6.305
15 And yet again neither says anything in his defense. Mk 15 3-5 = JW 6.305
16 Both are then beaten by the Romans. Mk 15.15 = JW 6.304
17 In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
18 ....but doesn't (Mark)....but does (JW). Mk 15 6-15 vs. JW 6.305
19 Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery). Mk 15.34 = JW 6.308-309
20 Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. Mk 15.34 = JW 6.309
21 Both die with a loud cry. Mk 15.37 = JW 6.309

Any reasonable person looking at this table of the parallels between the two accounts would accept that this is beyond mere coincidence. Therefore Mark either independently knew of Jesus ben Ananias and incorporated his story into the Passion Narrative or he borrowed key elements of the story from Josephus.

The million dollar question follows. If Jesus was an actual historical person, why would Mark need to incorporate someone else's life into the account of Jesus of Nazareth in his gospel? Will the real Jesus please stand up.

We all know Jesus had a split personality. He switched between being a messiah and a raving lunatic. Mark and the disciples only knew Jesus for about 3 years. Even the Gospels show Jesus's mental condition deteriorating. John the Baptist is the first to doubt Jesus is a messiah. The people threaten to stone Jesus for his blasphemous claims. Even Jesus admits a time will come when he will no longer speak figuratively. His mind was not right.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 11:03:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 12:03:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:

We all know Jesus had a split personality. He switched between being a messiah and a raving lunatic. Mark and the disciples only knew Jesus for about 3 years. Even the Gospels show Jesus's mental condition deteriorating. John the Baptist is the first to doubt Jesus is a messiah. The people threaten to stone Jesus for his blasphemous claims. Even Jesus admits a time will come when he will no longer speak figuratively. His mind was not right.

If you don't have anything pertinent to say regarding the subject matter of the OP it would be a common courtesy to not pollute my thread. If you want to start a separate thread on Jesus's sanity or lack thereof please be my guest. Thanks.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 12:47:44 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 11:03:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:03:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:

We all know Jesus had a split personality. He switched between being a messiah and a raving lunatic. Mark and the disciples only knew Jesus for about 3 years. Even the Gospels show Jesus's mental condition deteriorating. John the Baptist is the first to doubt Jesus is a messiah. The people threaten to stone Jesus for his blasphemous claims. Even Jesus admits a time will come when he will no longer speak figuratively. His mind was not right.

If you don't have anything pertinent to say regarding the subject matter of the OP it would be a common courtesy to not pollute my thread. If you want to start a separate thread on Jesus's sanity or lack thereof please be my guest. Thanks.

Even you have doubts who the real Jesus is. If you knew Jesus was a schizophrenic you would less confused about his multiple personalities.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 1:24:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
...

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus

Joshua was a common name. I hear they both had brunette hair as well.

2 Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. Mk 14.2 = JW 6.301

It was common for many Jews to make such a pilgrimage. In that day and age it would be rarer to find a Jew not going to the temple, not celebrating a major Jewish festival.

In addition Jesus is said to have gone to Jerusalem with his parents every year for Passover. (April)

Jesus of Ananias entered the city during Tabernacle. (October)

3 Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. Mk 11.15-17 = JW 6.301

Jesus is said to have made a whip and physical overturn tables. And that his preaching was hostile towards Pharisees, and Sadducees.

Josephus remarks Jesus ben Ananias went around the city saying "Woe to Jerusalem" repeatedly. (not specifically the temple like Jesus Christ)

4 During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. Jer. 7-11 in Mk; Jer. 7.34 in JW

Unsubstantiated. I could find no record of Jesus ben Ananias answering so. In fact I could only find 2 quotes ever attributed to him. "Woe to Jerusalem" and "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 this whole people" Neither of which is Jeremiah 7.11

5 Both then preach daily in the temple. Mk 14.49 = JW 6.306

Misleading. Jesus Christ taught and preached in the Temple. Jesus of Ananias repeatedly said the same thing through out the city.

6 Both declared 'woe' unto Judea or the Jews. Mk 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309

Woe. No way.

7 Both predict the temple will be destroyed. Mk 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come."

Was this lament a prediction of the temple being destroyed? I think it's a vague lament against the city.

Jesus Christ said the precisely the temple would be destroyed. No stone atop another. While the phrase is generally interpreted to refer to Jesus himself, it is bi-fold in it's meaning.

8 Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. Mk 14.43 = 6.302

Mk14:55 Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 "We heard him say, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands."" 59 Yet even about this their testimony did not agree....

"What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

Jesus was arrested without cause and questioned in court to find any cause they could kill him for. They settled on blasphemy.

Josephus writes of Jesus ben Ananias: However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

9 Both are accused of speaking against the temple. Mk 14.58 = JW 6.302
10 Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. Mk 14.60 = JW 6.302
11 Both are beaten by the Jews. Mk 14.65 = JW 6.302

Seems like common practice for the Jews in charge.

12 Then both are taken to the Roman governor. Pilate in Mk 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302

As is common custom

13 Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. Mk 15.2-4 = JW 6.305

Woe after being taken to the Local Authority, the Local authority QUESTIONS them!!! no way.

14 During which both are asked to identify themselves. Mk 15. 2 = JW 6.305

No way, the first questioned asked was "who are you?". That certainly is uncommon.

15 And yet again neither says anything in his defense. Mk 15 3-5 = JW 6.305
16 Both are then beaten by the Romans. Mk 15.15 = JW 6.304

Jesus of Ananias was beaten by the Jews then the Romans before being questioned.

17 In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
18 ....but doesn't (Mark)....but does (JW). Mk 15 6-15 vs. JW 6.305

Pilate gave the choice to the crowd. Such a narrative is not related with Jesus Ben Ananias.

19 Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery). Mk 15.34 = JW 6.308-309

._. No difference there.

20 Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. Mk 15.34 = JW 6.309
21 Both die with a loud cry. Mk 15.37 = JW 6.309

Unsubstantiated. Is it surprising someone "laments" at the moment of their death? Do you know what lament means?

Is it the same lament? Same last words? No.. so your crap is weak.


Any reasonable person ...

The Essenes and other groups were critical of the Temple and money changers. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel wrote a scathing review when the price of 2 doves was raised to a gold denar 25 times the proper amount.

So we have 2 people who were Jew, in Jerusalem, saying "Woe", critical of the temple, arrested and beaten by the Rich Jews, beaten by the Romans, and then died.

Wow any reasonable person can see they are the same people.

honestly given all the literature that is very critical of the 1st century Temple, the corruption and pilfering of the public, and the tactics of the Romans in that century in that area... you really think lamenting the city, cursing the Temple, and being beaten by the Romans, YOU think that would be UNUSUAL? (rhetorical)
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 1:38:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus
2 Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. Mk 14.2 = JW 6.301
3 Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. Mk 11.15-17 = JW 6.301
4 During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. Jer. 7-11 in Mk; Jer. 7.34 in JW
5 Both then preach daily in the temple. Mk 14.49 = JW 6.306
6 Both declared 'woe' unto Judea or the Jews. Mk 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309
7 Both predict the temple will be destroyed. Mk 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309
8 Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. Mk 14.43 = 6.302
9 Both are accused of speaking against the temple. Mk 14.58 = JW 6.302
10 Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. Mk 14.60 = JW 6.302
11 Both are beaten by the Jews. Mk 14.65 = JW 6.302
12 Then both are taken to the Roman governor. Pilate in Mk 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302
13 Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. Mk 15.2-4 = JW 6.305
14 During which both are asked to identify themselves. Mk 15. 2 = JW 6.305
15 And yet again neither says anything in his defense. Mk 15 3-5 = JW 6.305
16 Both are then beaten by the Romans. Mk 15.15 = JW 6.304
17 In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
18 ....but doesn't (Mark)....but does (JW). Mk 15 6-15 vs. JW 6.305
19 Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery). Mk 15.34 = JW 6.308-309
20 Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. Mk 15.34 = JW 6.309
21 Both die with a loud cry. Mk 15.37 = JW 6.309

Any reasonable person looking at this table of the parallels between the two accounts would accept that this is beyond mere coincidence. Therefore Mark either independently knew of Jesus ben Ananias and incorporated his story into the Passion Narrative or he borrowed key elements of the story from Josephus.

The million dollar question follows. If Jesus was an actual historical person, why would Mark need to incorporate someone else's life into the account of Jesus of Nazareth in his gospel? Will the real Jesus please stand up.

The more pressing question is why would Flavius need to not present the truth in his historical notations?
answer:
To dispel rumors about Jesus that were circulating in Gnostic circles shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, that were causing Roman citizens to reject Roman Gods. In changing Mark's narrative, Flavius officiates a reason to disbelieve in Christ.

Later after many Romans were martyred for their beliefs, Constantine makes Christianity the official religion - to keep power over the people.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 9:44:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 1:38:46 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:

Any reasonable person looking at this table of the parallels between the two accounts would accept that this is beyond mere coincidence. Therefore Mark either independently knew of Jesus ben Ananias and incorporated his story into the Passion Narrative or he borrowed key elements of the story from Josephus.

The million dollar question follows. If Jesus was an actual historical person, why would Mark need to incorporate someone else's life into the account of Jesus of Nazareth in his gospel? Will the real Jesus please stand up.

The more pressing question is why would Flavius need to not present the truth in his historical notations?

So you immediately leap to the conclusion that Josephus, a respected historian, is lying? Rather than Mark who wasn't writing history but a religious tract to spread the "good news". Interesting starting point. Why? Josephus is generally acknowledged as vying for accuracy in his historiography, particularly his first work JW. In contrast we don't even know who 'Mark' was.

answer:
To dispel rumors about Jesus that were circulating in Gnostic circles shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, that were causing Roman citizens to reject Roman Gods. In changing Mark's narrative, Flavius officiates a reason to disbelieve in Christ.

So you also assume that Mark's gospel came first and that Josephus was aware of it all the way over in Rome? Unfortunately Josephus demonstrates no knowledge of Mark's gospel. In fact there is only a scant mention of the Christian Jesus and that was in another work 20 years later (and probably interpolated). If you have some evidence of his knowledge of Christianity in Jewish Wars I would be interested in a reference.

Your claim that Josephus is trying to discredit the story of Mark about a Jesus from nearly four decades earlier is more than a little bizarre. If you are trying to discredit someone, why change the family name and place the events decades later in a different setting? And not a hint of a mention of Christianity, gnostic or otherwise. That makes no sense to me.

Your other claim that Romans were rejecting their gods (in Rome where Josephus resided) is equally bizarre. I would like to see your evidence. To my knowledge Christians were barely on the radar at that time. Again, Josephus displays no knowledge of Christianity. His concerns are on the Jewish people and the Jewish religion. I'm not sure why Josephus would even care if some Romans were abandoning their gods.

Later after many Romans were martyred for their beliefs, Constantine makes Christianity the official religion - to keep power over the people.

Romans martyred? You are talking about nearly three centuries later with Constantine. What possible relevance does that have to my OP?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 10:11:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 1:24:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus

Joshua was a common name. I hear they both had brunette hair as well.
<snip>

Any reasonable person ...

I've highlighted the relevant word. You must have missed it.

The Essenes and other groups were critical of the Temple and money changers. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel wrote a scathing review when the price of 2 doves was raised to a gold denar 25 times the proper amount.

So we have 2 people who were Jew, in Jerusalem, saying "Woe", critical of the temple, arrested and beaten by the Rich Jews, beaten by the Romans, and then died.

Wow any reasonable person can see they are the same people.

I never stated that they were the same person. You have reading comprehension issues. The conclusion is that one account is based on the other. Either Josephus borrowed from Mark (which makes no sense) or Mark based the Passion Narrative part of his gospel story on Jesus ben Ananias, either through direct knowledge or via Josephus.

honestly given all the literature that is very critical of the 1st century Temple, the corruption and pilfering of the public, and the tactics of the Romans in that century in that area... you really think lamenting the city, cursing the Temple, and being beaten by the Romans, YOU think that would be UNUSUAL? (rhetorical)

It was unusual enough for Josephus to document this one individual. Did he document others? Am I missing something?

You engage in yet another fallacy. If there were 1,000 parallels between the two accounts you could nitpick each one and then claim that you had refuted them. According to this style of argument, no two accounts could ever be based one on the other. An obvious fallacy. The fact is that if you had 5 parallels (or maybe even 10) you could say, yes that could be coincidence. Here you have 20 parallels. It's not the nature of the parallels but the sheer quantity which is pertinent. There has to come a point where you have to admit, if you are reasonable, that there are too many to dismiss it all as mere coincidence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:46:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 10:11:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:24:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus

Joshua was a common name. I hear they both had brunette hair as well.
<snip>

Any reasonable person ...

I've highlighted the relevant word. You must have missed it.

The Essenes and other groups were critical of the Temple and money changers. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel wrote a scathing review when the price of 2 doves was raised to a gold denar 25 times the proper amount.

So we have 2 people who were Jew, in Jerusalem, saying "Woe", critical of the temple, arrested and beaten by the Rich Jews, beaten by the Romans, and then died.

Wow any reasonable person can see they are the same people.

I never stated that they were the same person. You have reading comprehension issues. The conclusion is that one account is based on the other. Either Josephus borrowed from Mark (which makes no sense) or Mark based the Passion Narrative part of his gospel story on Jesus ben Ananias, either through direct knowledge or via Josephus.

honestly given all the literature that is very critical of the 1st century Temple, the corruption and pilfering of the public, and the tactics of the Romans in that century in that area... you really think lamenting the city, cursing the Temple, and being beaten by the Romans, YOU think that would be UNUSUAL? (rhetorical)

It was unusual enough for Josephus to document this one individual. Did he document others? Am I missing something?

You engage in yet another fallacy. If there were 1,000 parallels between the two accounts you could nitpick each one and then claim that you had refuted them. According to this style of argument, no two accounts could ever be based one on the other. An obvious fallacy. The fact is that if you had 5 parallels (or maybe even 10) you could say, yes that could be coincidence. Here you have 20 parallels. It's not the nature of the parallels but the sheer quantity which is pertinent. There has to come a point where you have to admit, if you are reasonable, that there are too many to dismiss it all as mere coincidence.

It is the nature of the parallels.

One parallel is a common name. The other is that they were Jew going to Jerusalem for a Holiday. Jesus is said to have gone to Jerusalem with his parents every year for Passover. But Jesus ben Ananias went tot he city at the feast of Tabernacles.

Answer each critique point by point I gave. Any reasonable person will see you claimed parallels of common trivial characteristics and generalized other comments to false equivocations. Such as claiming JBA and JC both spoke of the temples destruction. Incorrect JBA did no such thing.

A list of 18 parallels that would have match thousands of people in that era. And then 2 parallels that are over simplified to false equivocations. Any reasonable person would see you are attempting to hoodwink and audience.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 2:58:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:46:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:11:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:24:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus

Joshua was a common name. I hear they both had brunette hair as well.
<snip>

Any reasonable person ...

I've highlighted the relevant word. You must have missed it.

The Essenes and other groups were critical of the Temple and money changers. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel wrote a scathing review when the price of 2 doves was raised to a gold denar 25 times the proper amount.

So we have 2 people who were Jew, in Jerusalem, saying "Woe", critical of the temple, arrested and beaten by the Rich Jews, beaten by the Romans, and then died.

Wow any reasonable person can see they are the same people.

I never stated that they were the same person. You have reading comprehension issues. The conclusion is that one account is based on the other. Either Josephus borrowed from Mark (which makes no sense) or Mark based the Passion Narrative part of his gospel story on Jesus ben Ananias, either through direct knowledge or via Josephus.

honestly given all the literature that is very critical of the 1st century Temple, the corruption and pilfering of the public, and the tactics of the Romans in that century in that area... you really think lamenting the city, cursing the Temple, and being beaten by the Romans, YOU think that would be UNUSUAL? (rhetorical)

It was unusual enough for Josephus to document this one individual. Did he document others? Am I missing something?

You engage in yet another fallacy. If there were 1,000 parallels between the two accounts you could nitpick each one and then claim that you had refuted them. According to this style of argument, no two accounts could ever be based one on the other. An obvious fallacy. The fact is that if you had 5 parallels (or maybe even 10) you could say, yes that could be coincidence. Here you have 20 parallels. It's not the nature of the parallels but the sheer quantity which is pertinent. There has to come a point where you have to admit, if you are reasonable, that there are too many to dismiss it all as mere coincidence.

It is the nature of the parallels.

One parallel is a common name.

Are you disputing it? If not, it's a parallel. Right?

The other is that they were Jew going to Jerusalem for a Holiday. Jesus is said to have gone to Jerusalem with his parents every year for Passover.

Weren't they hiding out in Egypt for a number of years?
But anyway, so what? It's still a parallel that he came to Jerusalem during a religious festival as did JBA. Right?

But Jesus ben Ananias went tot he city at the feast of Tabernacles.

They both sound like religious festivals to me. That was the parallel. Right?

Answer each critique point by point I gave. Any reasonable person will see you claimed parallels of common trivial characteristics and generalized other comments to false equivocations.

No, the parallels are real. Any reasonable person would accept them.

Such as claiming JBA and JC both spoke of the temples destruction. Incorrect JBA did no such thing.

He surely did. You were even given the references:
"a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary"
"Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple"

A list of 18 parallels that would have match thousands of people in that era.

A mere assertion on your part. Were there thousands of Jesuses? Were thousands of Jesuses arrested and tried? You are being absurd.

And then 2 parallels that are over simplified to false equivocations. Any reasonable person would see you are attempting to hoodwink and audience.

Not when references are provided for each and every parallel.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 3:05:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 2:58:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:46:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:11:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:24:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus

Joshua was a common name. I hear they both had brunette hair as well.
<snip>

Any reasonable person ...

I've highlighted the relevant word. You must have missed it.

The Essenes and other groups were critical of the Temple and money changers. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel wrote a scathing review when the price of 2 doves was raised to a gold denar 25 times the proper amount.

So we have 2 people who were Jew, in Jerusalem, saying "Woe", critical of the temple, arrested and beaten by the Rich Jews, beaten by the Romans, and then died.

Wow any reasonable person can see they are the same people.

I never stated that they were the same person. You have reading comprehension issues. The conclusion is that one account is based on the other. Either Josephus borrowed from Mark (which makes no sense) or Mark based the Passion Narrative part of his gospel story on Jesus ben Ananias, either through direct knowledge or via Josephus.

honestly given all the literature that is very critical of the 1st century Temple, the corruption and pilfering of the public, and the tactics of the Romans in that century in that area... you really think lamenting the city, cursing the Temple, and being beaten by the Romans, YOU think that would be UNUSUAL? (rhetorical)

It was unusual enough for Josephus to document this one individual. Did he document others? Am I missing something?

You engage in yet another fallacy. If there were 1,000 parallels between the two accounts you could nitpick each one and then claim that you had refuted them. According to this style of argument, no two accounts could ever be based one on the other. An obvious fallacy. The fact is that if you had 5 parallels (or maybe even 10) you could say, yes that could be coincidence. Here you have 20 parallels. It's not the nature of the parallels but the sheer quantity which is pertinent. There has to come a point where you have to admit, if you are reasonable, that there are too many to dismiss it all as mere coincidence.

It is the nature of the parallels.

One parallel is a common name.

Are you disputing it? If not, it's a parallel. Right?

Like thousands of other Jewish males. Why don't you cite that they both had brunette hair and a Jewish nose.


The other is that they were Jew going to Jerusalem for a Holiday. Jesus is said to have gone to Jerusalem with his parents every year for Passover.

Weren't they hiding out in Egypt for a number of years?
Not substantiated
But anyway, so what? It's still a parallel that he came to Jerusalem during a religious festival as did JBA. Right?

Like EVERY Jewish Male who could make the journey.


But Jesus ben Ananias went tot he city at the feast of Tabernacles.

They both sound like religious festivals to me. That was the parallel. Right?

And they were Jewish males in the 1 century.


Answer each critique point by point I gave. Any reasonable person will see you claimed parallels of common trivial characteristics and generalized other comments to false equivocations.

No, the parallels are real. Any reasonable person would accept them.

They were Jewish males in the 1 century.


Such as claiming JBA and JC both spoke of the temples destruction. Incorrect JBA did no such thing.

He surely did. You were even given the references:
"a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary"
"Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple"

Those don't say the temple will be destroyed.


A list of 18 parallels that would have match thousands of people in that era.

A mere assertion on your part. Were there thousands of Jesuses? Were thousands of Jesuses arrested and tried? You are being absurd.

And then 2 parallels that are over simplified to false equivocations. Any reasonable person would see you are attempting to hoodwink and audience.

Not when references are provided for each and every parallel.

Why don't you extend your list tot he fact that both of them had male genitalia?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:39:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 3:05:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/27/2016 2:58:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:46:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:11:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:24:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/25/2016 10:56:46 AM, dee-em wrote:

An analysis of this account of Jesus ben Ananias versus the Passion Narrative of the gospel of Mark is interesting. Here is that analysis by Richard Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" Table 6 on pages 429-430:

Parallels of Jesus "Christ" with Jesus ben Ananias.
1 Both are named Jesus

Joshua was a common name. I hear they both had brunette hair as well.
<snip>

Any reasonable person ...

I've highlighted the relevant word. You must have missed it.

The Essenes and other groups were critical of the Temple and money changers. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel wrote a scathing review when the price of 2 doves was raised to a gold denar 25 times the proper amount.

So we have 2 people who were Jew, in Jerusalem, saying "Woe", critical of the temple, arrested and beaten by the Rich Jews, beaten by the Romans, and then died.

Wow any reasonable person can see they are the same people.

I never stated that they were the same person. You have reading comprehension issues. The conclusion is that one account is based on the other. Either Josephus borrowed from Mark (which makes no sense) or Mark based the Passion Narrative part of his gospel story on Jesus ben Ananias, either through direct knowledge or via Josephus.

honestly given all the literature that is very critical of the 1st century Temple, the corruption and pilfering of the public, and the tactics of the Romans in that century in that area... you really think lamenting the city, cursing the Temple, and being beaten by the Romans, YOU think that would be UNUSUAL? (rhetorical)

It was unusual enough for Josephus to document this one individual. Did he document others? Am I missing something?

You engage in yet another fallacy. If there were 1,000 parallels between the two accounts you could nitpick each one and then claim that you had refuted them. According to this style of argument, no two accounts could ever be based one on the other. An obvious fallacy. The fact is that if you had 5 parallels (or maybe even 10) you could say, yes that could be coincidence. Here you have 20 parallels. It's not the nature of the parallels but the sheer quantity which is pertinent. There has to come a point where you have to admit, if you are reasonable, that there are too many to dismiss it all as mere coincidence.

It is the nature of the parallels.

One parallel is a common name.

Are you disputing it? If not, it's a parallel. Right?

Like thousands of other Jewish males.

So you tell us. Unfortunately Josephus only wrote about one, so it remains a parallel.

Why don't you cite that they both had brunette hair and a Jewish nose.

Most men were not named Jesus whereas most men were of Arabic appearance in Jerusalem. I trust you understand the distinction?

The other is that they were Jew going to Jerusalem for a Holiday. Jesus is said to have gone to Jerusalem with his parents every year for Passover.

Weren't they hiding out in Egypt for a number of years?

Not substantiated

It's in a gospel. It must be true! Lol.

But anyway, so what? It's still a parallel that he came to Jerusalem during a religious festival as did JBA. Right?

Like EVERY Jewish Male who could make the journey.

You miss the point. JBA could have arrived at any time. Similarly for JC. Yet they both arrived during a religious festival. An obvious parallel.

But Jesus ben Ananias went tot he city at the feast of Tabernacles.

They both sound like religious festivals to me. That was the parallel. Right?

And they were Jewish males in the 1 century.

What?

Answer each critique point by point I gave. Any reasonable person will see you claimed parallels of common trivial characteristics and generalized other comments to false equivocations.

No, the parallels are real. Any reasonable person would accept them.

They were Jewish males in the 1 century.

What is this supposed to even mean?

Such as claiming JBA and JC both spoke of the temples destruction. Incorrect JBA did no such thing.

He surely did. You were even given the references:
"a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary"
"Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple"

Those don't say the temple will be destroyed.

Any reasonable person would agree that they certainly do mean that. This is in fact why the Jewish aristocracy became upset and reported him to the authorities.

A list of 18 parallels that would have match thousands of people in that era.

A mere assertion on your part. Were there thousands of Jesuses? Were thousands of Jesuses arrested and tried? You are being absurd.

And then 2 parallels that are over simplified to false equivocations. Any reasonable person would see you are attempting to hoodwink and audience.

Not when references are provided for each and every parallel.

Why don't you extend your list tot he fact that both of them had male genitalia?

With the name Jesus that would be a given. Is your misplaced sarcasm supposed to be an argument?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:45:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
You want to parade common traits consistent with Jewish males in the first century. You want to falsely equivocate laments about the city and temple as being for it's destruction. You want to biasly disregard the differences in the descriptions of both men.

I'll leave it to the public to read and discern the distinctions. I have no hope of you presenting an honest comparison. This thread is dead to me.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 5:19:14 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Another tabular listing of the parallels between the two accounts:

http://vridar.info...

This one is from Theodore Weeden (author of 'Mark: Traditions in Conflict') in informal email discussion.

Another interesting fact:

Mark uses the word "naos" for Temple in the contexts of the charge against Jesus that he spoke against the Temple [14:58; 15:29; and the vindication of Jesus' dismissal of the Temple in 15:38]. Elsewhere Mark always uses "hieros" for the Temple [11:11,15,16,27; 12:35; 13:1,3; 14:49]

Josephus uses the word "naos" for Temple in the account of his Jesus' declarations against it. [J.W.6,301,309]
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 2:40:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The above is more evidence, if more were needed, that Mark borrowed from Josephus. How else could the abrupt switch to a different word for Temple be explained?