Again, there is a jewish tale of a jesus who was executed during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus ( who died in 76 BC).  As I have so often mentioned what is intriguing here is the line in so called 2 Corinthians 11,

Quote:32 In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas secured the city of the Damascenes in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his grasp.

since there is no record of Damascus being under Nabatean rule once the Romans took it in 64 BC this can only be a reference to the activities of Aretas III who did control Damascus between 84 and 64 BC and who thus did overlap the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.

And let's not forget that Celsus, a Greco-Roman writer of the late 2d century who was the first to mention anyone named 'jesus' gives us this tale, as recorded by Origen of Caesarea.

Quote:"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and insavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?"

Ehrman is correct when he notes that the Talmud was written centuries later but the earliest part of it, the Mishnah, dates to around 200 AD.  What is his explanation for Celsus' writing tales that later appeared in the Mishnah?

Quote: If you read Ehrman more, he makes the point very well that there was not one early Christianity, but multiple Christian beliefs that were fundamentally contrary to each other.

Indeed.  "Lost Christianities" is a fantastic little book.  It is almost impossible to read it without coming to the conclusions that there were a myriad forms of christianity ( or more likely ) "chrestianity" through the Eastern Roman empire long before anyone dreamed up the preposterous story which now dominates.

(November 25, 2016 at 7:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Again, there is a jewish tale of a jesus who was executed during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus ( who died in 76 BC).  As I have so often mentioned what is intriguing here is the line in so called 2 Corinthians 11,

Quote:32 In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas secured the city of the Damascenes in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his grasp.

since there is no record of Damascus being under Nabatean rule once the Romans took it in 64 BC this can only be a reference to the activities of Aretas III who did control Damascus between 84 and 64 BC and who thus did overlap the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.

Wikipedia has an article on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris

I don't think that the mythicist position is helped by this passage.

Pompey the Great, exceeding his orders on a monumental scale but WTF, the senate wasn't going to make him give anything back, overran the remnants of the Seleucid Empire and the surrounding polities in the late 60's BC.  One of the cities taken was Damascus which had been held by Aretas III, king of Nabatea.  Aretas III had been up to his armpits in local power politics including the dynastic collapse of the Hasmoneans.  Josephus also recounts how Aretas III came to be ruler of Damascus.

As noted, Josephus also recounts how Aretas IV attacked Herod Antipas who was a client king of Rome and thus was a really stupid idea.  Lucius Vitellius, as Imperial Legate of Syria, was ordered to chase down Aretas IV.  These events are securely dated.  Vitellius was consul in 34 and would not have even been eligible for the command in Syria until 35.  He began his march in 37 and was still at Jerusalem when word arrived that Tiberius had died in mid-march of 37.  Figure the Roman military post would have taken no more than a month to reach him with word we can assume that Vitellius was in Jerusalem c Mid-April of 37 at which point he discontinued his pursuit of Aretas pending new orders from the new Emperor (Caligula.)  Josephus recounts all of this but never mentions a word about Damascus in any of it.

Now this line:

Quote:The Christian Apostle, Paul, mentions that he had to sneak out of Damascus in a basket through a window in the wall to escape the ethnarch of King Aretas. (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33, cf Acts 9:23, 24). However, there is some dispute whether troops belonging to Aretas actually controlled the city or if Paul was referring to "the official in control of a Nabataean community in Damascus, and not the city as a whole."

seems like later xtian horseshit.  Somewhere along the line they also invented a supposed "Settlement of the East" by Caligula but no Roman ( or Jewish ) historian seems to know anything about it.  What Caligula seems to have done - and this policy was continued by his uncle Claudius - was gradually restore bits of Herod the Great's kingdom to their boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa I.  Eventually, they aggrandized Herod Agrippa I to the point where his kingdom was bigger than Herod the Great's but Damascus was never part of it.  No Roman writer, not Tacitus, not Suetonius, not Lucian, not Dio, etc., etc, ever heard of Damascus being handed over to Aretas IV.  Josephus does mention that in the aftermath of the XIIth Legion's retreat from Jerusalem in 66 and a subsequent rebel attack on the rear guard the citizens of Damascus rose up and massacred the Jews.  Which certainly seems to suggest that their loyalties were to Rome and not Nabatea.

So I suspect that what we have here is more of the customary xtian circular reasoning.  "Paul" HAD to live in the first century AD therefore he must have been referring to Aretas IV who we know died in 40 AD.  Therefore the Romans "MUST" have given the city to Aretas IV because FUCKING ST PAUL could never be wrong."  It's bullshit, of course, with nothing except the ravings of jesus freak maniacs to back it up.

(November 25, 2016 at 8:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So I suspect that what we have here is more of the customary xtian circular reasoning.  "Paul" HAD to live in the first century AD therefore he must have been referring to Aretas IV who we know died in 40 AD.  Therefore the Romans "MUST" have given the city to Aretas IV because FUCKING ST PAUL could never be wrong."  It's bullshit, of course, with nothing except the ravings of jesus freak maniacs to back it up.

The simple truth is, we don't know anything on Jesus existing or not existing. Which would be what you expect when it's about a wandering preacher. But not when it's about an insurgent against Roman order. And that's what the biblical tales want us to believe.

That, apart from his reception of the biblical sources, is where Ehrman loses me entirely. I wouldn't know where he takes his conviction of a real and existing Jesus from. I'm inclined to leave that question open. Such as so many in history. We will never be able to say yes or no to a historical Jesus. The only thing we know is that someone at some time created a myth.

(November 25, 2016 at 8:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So I suspect that what we have here is more of the customary xtian circular reasoning.  "Paul" HAD to live in the first century AD therefore he must have been referring to Aretas IV who we know died in 40 AD.  Therefore the Romans "MUST" have given the city to Aretas IV because FUCKING ST PAUL could never be wrong."  It's bullshit, of course, with nothing except the ravings of jesus freak maniacs to back it up.

I am certainly not claiming that Paul was accurate in everything that he wrote; however, the scholarly consensus is that Josephus referenced Jesus explicitly, Christian interpolations notwithstanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

An insurgent against the Roman order?  Is that what they really say.  Sometime back I wrote this post in opposition to some guy who was insisting on the criteria of embarrassment as "proof" of his godboy.  It would help him to understand who is supposed to be embarrassed.  Reading those gospel passages makes it clear that it was the Jews who were pissed off, not the Romans.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-45366-po...pid1405658


No.  The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada.  The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman.  J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary."  Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet. 

I think they are all nuts because you cannot use flawed sources to reach anything except a flawed conclusion.

The historical evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, who likely had epilepsy, schizophrenia or some other disorder, perhaps, a lesion on his brain.  He started out in northern Galilee, where he was born, but after awhile, his friends and followers encouraged him to take his "message" to Jerusalem.  The end came quickly for him; a short time after his arrival, there was an altercation in the Temple, and he was arrested by the Romans.  After a short hearing and consultation with the Jewish authorities, the Romans executed him.  Perhaps, or perhaps, not, the Jewish leaders allowed a burial as an appeasement to some of his distraught followers, which the Roman authorities were completely indifferent to.

The rest is history...

(November 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The historical evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, who likely had epilepsy, schizophrenia or some other disorder, perhaps, a lesion on his brain.  He started out in northern Galilee, where he was born, but after awhile, his friends and followers encouraged him to take his "message" to Jerusalem.  The end came quickly for him; a short time after his arrival, there was an altercation in the Temple, and he was arrested by the Romans.  After a short hearing and consultation with the Jewish authorities, the Romans executed him.  Perhaps, or perhaps, not, the Jewish leaders allowed a burial as an appeasement to some of his distraught followers, which the Roman authorities were completely indifferent to.

The rest is history...

Don't forget the zombie part

(November 25, 2016 at 9:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No.  The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada.  The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman.  J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary."  Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet. 

The idea is not as far fetched if you go by the narrative. According to the gospels he's inciting unrest, calls himself King of the Jews, throws the money lenders out of the temple. If that had been true, the Romans would have done away with him swiftly. If it had been true, that is. But it wouldn't have gone down in accordance with the narrative, since for one there wouldn't have been any involvement of the priests, who were just Roman puppets, and secondly it would have left at least some traces in Roman records. Other, again according to the narrative, less important figures have. Also the grave story is entirely out of the window, since someone deserving of cruzifixion would have been thrown into the nearest ditch. After having been left to rot for a few months at the very least.