Alexander janneaus herod

Deathmunkee
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Alexander janneaus herod

Robert Price has asserted that early attempts were made to place jesus in history, which included saying he was crucified under one of the herods, and then under janneaus (sp). I need the source for this as I asserted this in an argument with a guy with a masters in biblical greek and he wanted to know my source.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
That's somewhat ridiculous

That's somewhat ridiculous to think that Alexander Jannaeus crucified Jesus. Alexander jannaeus was a King of Judea during the Hasmonean Dynasty and he is famous for murdering 800 fellow Jews via crucifixion. However, Jannaeus reigned from 103 BCE - 76 BCE. We would have some kind of historical sources referring to Jesus if he was a religious revolutionary who was crucified under Jannaeus (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jospehus, and 1 Maccabees. All these texts refer to the crucifxion of 800 by Jannaeus).

Finally, I think that Jospehus recording Jesus as the brother of James is pretty solid evidence for placing him in the 1st century CE. The Gospels, Acts and letters of Paul (like Galatians) are separate sources and also confirm that James was indeed that brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Not to mention the Tacitus text. He hated Christians, but he still placed the execution of Jesus under the goveronship of Pontius Pilate.

I've never understood Jesus Mysticism or random theories like Jesus living during the Hamonean dynasty. It really just ignores non-Christian historical sources and tries to create wild theories.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2376
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
J.C. in B.C.E.

 

       I also think it rediculous that Alexander Jannaeus crucified  Jesus.  No one crucified Jesus since he did not ever exist. But no doubt  Jannaeus' habit of crucifying Jews added details to the later story of the "annointed One".

       Yeoshua Bar Yuseph,- Jesus of Nazareth-, is a conglomeration of meny legions;  some based on facts and real persons. Starting with Mithra of the Zorastrians. A Jewish king crucifying other Jews was a convient precident for a Jewish court condeming another Jew to crucifixtion rather then the useual stoning.  Jesus suffering on the cross made a better story then getting his head bashed in by an irrate mob.

        The latest archeaological discoverys in Nazareth show no one lived there untill (cir.) 25C.E. Your gospell writers seemed to have confused Jesus THE Nazareen with Jesus (or James) OF Nazareth. The population there boomed after the year 70 C.E.; likely refugees from the destruction of Jerusalem.

        Christos is  a word that means "annointed"; Christians were those who believed that the Jewish savior "The annointed one" had arrived.   The name  jesus was simply put in front of the word christ because it was convienent around the year 60 C.E.  Saul of Tarsus was the biggest promoter of this "real person" shoved into an already existing cult.

        How much of J.C. comes from Mithra (cir.550 B.C.E.);  a lot, 12 desciples, birthday Dec. 25, virgin mother, early death, preaching peace and brotherhood, return from death 3 days later, big feast before death...etc.  Then add in the crucifixtion story curtisey of Jannaeus. Plus teachings from early 1st.century preachers like John The Baptist and other itinerate rabbis' and you end up with what Christians believe is true.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:That's

Christos wrote:

That's somewhat ridiculous to think that Alexander Jannaeus crucified Jesus. Alexander jannaeus was a King of Judea during the Hasmonean Dynasty and he is famous for murdering 800 fellow Jews via crucifixion. However, Jannaeus reigned from 103 BCE - 76 BCE. We would have some kind of historical sources referring to Jesus if he was a religious revolutionary who was crucified under Jannaeus (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jospehus, and 1 Maccabees. All these texts refer to the crucifxion of 800 by Jannaeus).

Finally, I think that Jospehus recording Jesus as the brother of James is pretty solid evidence for placing him in the 1st century CE. The Gospels, Acts and letters of Paul (like Galatians) are separate sources and also confirm that James was indeed that brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Not to mention the Tacitus text. He hated Christians, but he still placed the execution of Jesus under the goveronship of Pontius Pilate.

I've never understood Jesus Mysticism or random theories like Jesus living during the Hamonean dynasty. It really just ignores non-Christian historical sources and tries to create wild theories.

You mean that passage from Josephus that was written in a different style from the rest of his writings and probably added later by another?

As for the Gospels, Acts, and Paul - you mean to tell me that you're actually amazed that the writers lined up their creation to fit what they wrote? Also, just how common were the names that later came to be Jesus and James?

For Tacirtus - How many guys named Jesus (Yehshua) did Pilate crucify during his tenure? How do you know that Tacitus was talking about your guy (short of what you're doing - starting with your conculsion and fitting things in)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Hello jeffrick,I never said

Hello jeffrick,

I never said that Christianity doens't have striking similarities to Jesus. I'm not trying to prove the existence of the Christian conception of Jesus. But it's reasonable to assume that the man existed. You didn't try to disprove the evidence I listed in my first post.

Hey jcgadfly,

I'm not referring to the obviously forged passage from Josephus referring to Jesus. However, that's not the only reference he makes to Jesus. He references Jesus as the brother of James. James gained significant prominence as the leader of the Jerusalem Church. Jesus as the brother of this James from the Jerusalem Church are clearly supported by the Gospels/Acts and the letters of Paul. These sources are independent because the Gospels weren't written until after Paul died around 63 CE.

Finally, Tacitus is very realiable. You need to read the whole account. Here ya go!

Tacitus wrote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired

Essentially, Nero used the Christians as the scapegoat for a fire in Rome. While reading the text, it is clear that Tacitus absolutely hated Christians. It's highly unlikely that this account is fabricated or altered. Furthermore, tacitus confirms facts from the Gospels such as the crucifixion of Jesus and the fact that he was killed under the goveronship of Pontius Pilate. That's really good historical evidence to assume that Jesus existed as a historical person.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


tekbarrier
tekbarrier's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-05-31
User is offlineOffline
...

I think Price's point was that if Jesus was a real person who had quite recently lived and died, early Christians would be in complete agreement regarding when he was alive. As Price points out, they don't seem to be in agreement, which seems strange.

 

That's like if a few decades after George Washington died, some people were going around claiming that he came to America on the Mayflower in 1620. (Everyone with half a brain knows that he really came to America with Columbus, in 1492. j/k)

 

EDIT: That is a good point, though. What is Price's source for that claim?


rm991
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Price's source

I don't know where Robert Price got it from for sure but one source is Epiphanius. Look here:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/case02.htm

Look for Jannaeus in that page and you will find the section where it talks about this. From reading that section looks like Epiphanius might be making a dogmatic claim and not based on any actual knowledge.

It's an old book but it has references to where the quotes come from.

Howeve I think Price mentions that some Jewish-Christians beleived this too which is not mentioned here. He might have another source.

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Deathmunkee

Deathmunkee wrote:
Robert Price has asserted that early attempts were made to place jesus in history, which included saying he was crucified under one of the herods, and then under janneaus (sp). I need the source for this as I asserted this in an argument with a guy with a masters in biblical greek and he wanted to know my source.

 

OK dude, are you telling us that you are debating this stuff with someone who is considerably more educated than you are? And that you are trying to pass of stuff that you just heard somewhere?

 

Seriously, even if you get what you want today, you still need to stop doing that stuff or you are going to be dead meat in all of your debates.

 

Slow down and take the time to familiarize yourself with the material. Learn where it comes from. Then when you can provide answers like your opponent(s) call for, try having another debate.

 

Stick around our forums as we tend to talk about this stuff all the time and many of us know how to cite our assertions. With some time, you will be much better armed for that type of confrontation.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Anon (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I'd like to point out that

 I'd like to point out that Josephus didn't refer to Jesus son of Joseph, but Jesus son of Damneus, who was made high priest of Judea by King Agrippa after his brother James was executed by the previous high priest, Ananus. Agrippa became King in 48. 

The copies of Josephus we have have the words "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James", but this was likely a copyist error, derived from a marginal note a monk must have put in when he came across the name "James", knowing that he was the brother of Jesus because of what occurred later in the story. The semantics of this sentence make no sense; at this point in the narrative he is talking about James being brought before the high priest, Ananus for some crime, why would he introduce him as the brother of this other person, Jesus, who has never been yet mentioned in the text? This is clearly not Josephus' words, as Josephus was both a Jew and a pharisee, and even if he was writing about Jesus, would not have called him "the Christ." The same holds true "Testimonium Flavianum", which was most likely at least partially a forgery. 

There are no historical records concerning the existence of Jesus prior to Antiquities, which was written in 70. Most merely remark, in passing, upon the fact that there are a group of people who are called Christians (or "Chrestus" in the case of Suetonius) who worship a man they called the messiah who was called Jesus. The assertions that Jesus was crucified by King Alexander were likely attempts to assert a fictional Jesus into historical time by people who still remembered the first few decades after Herod.

 


Michael A Thompson (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Jesus death

Deathmunkee wrote:
Robert Price has asserted that early attempts were made to place jesus in history, which included saying he was crucified under one of the herods, and then under janneaus (sp). I need the source for this as I asserted this in an argument with a guy with a masters in biblical greek and he wanted to know my source.

I'm kind of surprised no one answered this well.  This assertion comes from the Talmud.  You can use this link to read and continue your research (References are at bottom.).  Please keep in mind that, when it comes to mythology worship, believers can't persuade you with truth so they try to baffle you with bullshit.  This truism applies even more so the further you go back in writings because back then literally had NO difference between fiction and non-fiction.  The concept of seperating these two types of writing hadn't been thought up yet so in most writings back then you got both. : )


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions

Jeffrick wrote:

 

       I also think it rediculous that Alexander Jannaeus crucified  Jesus.  No one crucified Jesus since he did not ever exist. But no doubt  Jannaeus' habit of crucifying Jews added details to the later story of the "annointed One".

       Yeoshua Bar Yuseph,- Jesus of Nazareth-, is a conglomeration of meny legions;  some based on facts and real persons. Starting with Mithra of the Zorastrians. A Jewish king crucifying other Jews was a convient precident for a Jewish court condeming another Jew to crucifixtion rather then the useual stoning.  Jesus suffering on the cross made a better story then getting his head bashed in by an irrate mob.

        The latest archeaological discoverys in Nazareth show no one lived there untill (cir.) 25C.E. Your gospell writers seemed to have confused Jesus THE Nazareen with Jesus (or James) OF Nazareth. The population there boomed after the year 70 C.E.; likely refugees from the destruction of Jerusalem.

        Christos is  a word that means "annointed"; Christians were those who believed that the Jewish savior "The annointed one" had arrived.   The name  jesus was simply put in front of the word christ because it was convienent around the year 60 C.E.  Saul of Tarsus was the biggest promoter of this "real person" shoved into an already existing cult.

        How much of J.C. comes from Mithra (cir.550 B.C.E.);  a lot, 12 desciples, birthday Dec. 25, virgin mother, early death, preaching peace and brotherhood, return from death 3 days later, big feast before death...etc.  Then add in the crucifixtion story curtisey of Jannaeus. Plus teachings from early 1st.century preachers like John The Baptist and other itinerate rabbis' and you end up with what Christians believe is true.

Which of the claimed messiahs were the Apostles following if there were others. Are you saying then that they followed no one. Wouldn't it be illogical to do all that writing and following for no other reason then a joke on the upcoming generations. What were they to gain by pulling a generational falsehood, and write all what they did for no reason. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.