Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2016, 08:47 AM
Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
There is only one person named "Mary" that is mentioned by Josephus and it just so happens that she was found after having roasted her son in the famine caused by the siege of Jerusalem. The guards wanted to take her food from her, but couldn't. Then suddenly the holy Roman army appears:

The Shepherds and Angels 1:
[Image: dd9sbj4ogr1y.png]

Shepherds and Angels 2: The Heavenly Army Appears
[Image: od60ds6g8s1y.png]

Jesus Anointed by Mary: Mary hath Chosen that Good Part
[Image: 4l32q3pw8y2y.png]


“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you {you will starve;}. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life {will be remembered forever;}; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever {have their story told forever and reenacted in churches around the world;}.”
– John 6:52-58

“…nor by way of irony, as thou wilt say, (for he was entirely a stranger to such an evil disposition of mind,) but he wrote this by way of attestation to what was true…”
– The Life Of Flavius Josephus, 1:65
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fhqwhgads's post
11-12-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
(11-12-2016 08:47 AM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  There is only one person named "Mary" that is mentioned by Josephus and it just so happens that she was found after having roasted her son in the famine caused by the siege of Jerusalem. The guards wanted to take her food from her, but couldn't. Then suddenly the holy Roman army appears:

The Shepherds and Angels 1:
[Image: dd9sbj4ogr1y.png]

Shepherds and Angels 2: The Heavenly Army Appears
[Image: od60ds6g8s1y.png]

Jesus Anointed by Mary: Mary hath Chosen that Good Part
[Image: 4l32q3pw8y2y.png]


“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you {you will starve;}. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life {will be remembered forever;}; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever {have their story told forever and reenacted in churches around the world;}.”
– John 6:52-58

“…nor by way of irony, as thou wilt say, (for he was entirely a stranger to such an evil disposition of mind,) but he wrote this by way of attestation to what was true…”
– The Life Of Flavius Josephus, 1:65

Yes, this is an amazing passage. Jeebus, son of a Mary, did, in fact, become a "by-word to the world."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
11-12-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
(11-12-2016 04:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 08:47 AM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  There is only one person named "Mary" that is mentioned by Josephus and it just so happens that she was found after having roasted her son in the famine caused by the siege of Jerusalem. The guards wanted to take her food from her, but couldn't. Then suddenly the holy Roman army appears:

The Shepherds and Angels 1:
[Image: dd9sbj4ogr1y.png]

Shepherds and Angels 2: The Heavenly Army Appears
[Image: od60ds6g8s1y.png]

Jesus Anointed by Mary: Mary hath Chosen that Good Part
[Image: 4l32q3pw8y2y.png]


“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you {you will starve;}. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life {will be remembered forever;}; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever {have their story told forever and reenacted in churches around the world;}.”
– John 6:52-58

“…nor by way of irony, as thou wilt say, (for he was entirely a stranger to such an evil disposition of mind,) but he wrote this by way of attestation to what was true…”
– The Life Of Flavius Josephus, 1:65

Yes, this is an amazing passage. Jeebus, son of a Mary, did, in fact, become a "by-word to the world" and a "fury to these seditious varlets..."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
You aren't going to surprise too many historians with the assertion that whoever the fuck wrote 'Luke' had read Josephus and liberally copied some parts.

The question of course is "when?" I'm leaning to mid 2d century.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
12-12-2016, 05:01 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2016 05:06 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
Atwill's theory is that they were written by the same person/people, Josephus et al. That would be the likely way the parallels would occur in real life. But fqowiejf (sp?) is departing from this theory by saying that the NT is a satire of Josephus. Atwill is saying it is a satire of the religious practices of the Syrians, whoever they were. He says the empty tomb stories in the four gospels is a comedy of errors with various people running back and forth up and down the hill. I read it again in light of this and, frankly, it's not funny. i think the better explanation of the inconsistencies is that the gospels tell a story through time, as the story progresses, and having four different versions allows us to see events as they unfold.

His main point, however, is not that it is a satire. Atwill uses these comparisons primarily to point out the statistical likelihood that the works, The War with the Jews and the New Testament, were written with reference to each other so that the NT has to be set 40 years before the real events with the Jesus story being much earlier than it actually was, so that he can prophesy the destruction of the Temple.

Beyond that, what Atwill says is his interpretation of what the consequence of this is. For him, it is that Jesus is Titus Flavius and the NT is intended to make the Flavians into the gods of this part of the world. His book is sparse on anything at all which justifies this beyond the statistical analysis, which is, in fact, quite believable and I haven't seen anyone successfully counter it. Carrier tried but not very credibly. He argued that Gadara was too far up a hill for it to correspond to the biblical incident of swine running into the water.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 05:10 AM
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
To be fair, Atwill points out that it was not unusual for Roman soldiers to dress up as the "god" of a tribe they were fighting and the lucky Romanwho got to be the "god" got killed by his fellow Romans, thus scaring the f.ck out of the other side so they would surrender or run away. He gave his life so that others could live... That sort of thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 05:20 AM
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
(11-12-2016 04:48 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  You aren't going to surprise too many historians with the assertion that whoever the fuck wrote 'Luke' had read Josephus and liberally copied some parts.

The question of course is "when?" I'm leaning to mid 2d century.

No, I suppose what will surprise people is that at least 80% of the gospels can be shown to be textually dependent on Josephus and possibly the rest as well. If 80% of it is a satire of Josephus, then it is originally intended as a satire of Josephus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 06:45 AM
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
(12-12-2016 05:01 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Atwill's theory is that they were written by the same person/people, Josephus et al. That would be the likely way the parallels would occur in real life. But fqowiejf (sp?) is departing from this theory by saying that the NT is a satire of Josephus.

Ok, Atwill's "theory" of authorship by the Flavians or Josephus is garbage. For one thing, there were many gospels being written that were never included in the Bible, they were popping up around the Roman empire long after Vespasian, Titus and Josephus were all dead and edits continuing well into at least the second century. Also they had different styles and linguistic peculiarities, so suggesting that this was done by them is dumb. The Flavians would have had no way of knowing which gospels would make it into the Bible and no Romans were pushing this as a religion until more than a couple hundred years later. The "theory" of Flavian authorship was never supported by anything, R.I.P. Flavian Vanity. What Atwill did show is some evidence of textual dependence between the Gospels and NT but much of that was already known since centuries.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 08:24 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2016 08:28 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
(12-12-2016 06:45 AM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  
(12-12-2016 05:01 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Atwill's theory is that they were written by the same person/people, Josephus et al. That would be the likely way the parallels would occur in real life. But fqowiejf (sp?) is departing from this theory by saying that the NT is a satire of Josephus.

Ok, Atwill's "theory" of authorship by the Flavians or Josephus is garbage. For one thing, there were many gospels being written that were never included in the Bible, they were popping up around the Roman empire long after Vespasian, Titus and Josephus were all dead and edits continuing well into at least the second century. Also they had different styles and linguistic peculiarities, so suggesting that this was done by them is dumb. The Flavians would have had no way of knowing which gospels would make it into the Bible and no Romans were pushing this as a religion until more than a couple hundred years later. The "theory" of Flavian authorship was never supported by anything, R.I.P. Flavian Vanity. What Atwill did show is some evidence of textual dependence between the Gospels and NT but much of that was already known since centuries.


Ok, so here is what I get so far:

1. You don't agree with the statistical analysis of Atwill based on Titus' travels through Judea. I find this to be his most significant point because it is a mathematical position and it's either right or it's wrong and if 7 squared is 49 then he is right because that is how simple his argument is. I have not heard anyone debunk the mathematical theory and if you can't do that then I think you have missed the point of what he is saying.

2. There are a lot of other gospels written. Yes, plainly. But no one knows exactly how they were chosen. It may be that the four we have were always going to be chosen and all the rest were never in the running. Atwill shows how they tie together in terms of exact sequences of events so it may be that these were the four gospels that people "in the know" had already decided would form the Synoptic Gospels. We just don't know. What we do have is the mathematics and that is difficult to ignore.

3. You are saying the NT is parody of Josephus' War with the Jews. Partly you say this because Josephus would not have insulted the Romans unless he was writing seriously from a Jewish perspective and really didn't like the Romans, calling them "scum" and such like, and you seem to think he is writing seriously when he talks about the absurd aspects of the War with the Jews. If he isn't, then the NT isn't a satire. But, on the other hand, you say that he thought the Roman destruction of the Temple was Prophesied and we all know that he turned coat and became a member of the Flavian family, adopting their family name. So I'm not following.

Surely its more likely that the Romans didn't like the religion which drove the "Jews" of the Levant and they wanted to promote a religion which pacified the region, considering the brutality and length of the wars. That would suggest the NT would be satirical, if you can even call it that, of the religion of the region, not of another book, but, obviously, the book, War with the Jews, would provide a historical reference upon which the satire is based. He's not making fun of Josephus' book, because it may be that Josephus is quite accurate in depiction the Jews the way he did. He's satirising the religion and culture described in the book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2017, 04:04 PM
RE: Jesus Anointed by Mary (satire)
(12-12-2016 08:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(12-12-2016 06:45 AM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  Ok, Atwill's "theory" of authorship by the Flavians or Josephus is garbage. For one thing, there were many gospels being written that were never included in the Bible, they were popping up around the Roman empire long after Vespasian, Titus and Josephus were all dead and edits continuing well into at least the second century. Also they had different styles and linguistic peculiarities, so suggesting that this was done by them is dumb. The Flavians would have had no way of knowing which gospels would make it into the Bible and no Romans were pushing this as a religion until more than a couple hundred years later. The "theory" of Flavian authorship was never supported by anything, R.I.P. Flavian Vanity. What Atwill did show is some evidence of textual dependence between the Gospels and NT but much of that was already known since centuries.


Ok, so here is what I get so far:

1. You don't agree with the statistical analysis of Atwill based on Titus' travels through Judea. I find this to be his most significant point because it is a mathematical position and it's either right or it's wrong and if 7 squared is 49 then he is right because that is how simple his argument is. I have not heard anyone debunk the mathematical theory and if you can't do that then I think you have missed the point of what he is saying.

2. There are a lot of other gospels written. Yes, plainly. But no one knows exactly how they were chosen. It may be that the four we have were always going to be chosen and all the rest were never in the running. Atwill shows how they tie together in terms of exact sequences of events so it may be that these were the four gospels that people "in the know" had already decided would form the Synoptic Gospels. We just don't know. What we do have is the mathematics and that is difficult to ignore.

3. You are saying the NT is parody of Josephus' War with the Jews. Partly you say this because Josephus would not have insulted the Romans unless he was writing seriously from a Jewish perspective and really didn't like the Romans, calling them "scum" and such like, and you seem to think he is writing seriously when he talks about the absurd aspects of the War with the Jews. If he isn't, then the NT isn't a satire. But, on the other hand, you say that he thought the Roman destruction of the Temple was Prophesied and we all know that he turned coat and became a member of the Flavian family, adopting their family name. So I'm not following.

Surely its more likely that the Romans didn't like the religion which drove the "Jews" of the Levant and they wanted to promote a religion which pacified the region, considering the brutality and length of the wars. That would suggest the NT would be satirical, if you can even call it that, of the religion of the region, not of another book, but, obviously, the book, War with the Jews, would provide a historical reference upon which the satire is based. He's not making fun of Josephus' book, because it may be that Josephus is quite accurate in depiction the Jews the way he did. He's satirising the religion and culture described in the book.

Surely its more likely that the Romans didn't like the religion which drove the "Jews" of the Levant and they wanted to promote a religion which pacified the region, considering the brutality and length of the wars. That would suggest the NT would be satirical, if you can even call it that, of the religion of the region, not of another book, but, obviously, the book, War with the Jews, would provide a historical reference upon which the satire is based. He's not making fun of Josephus' book, because it may be that Josephus is quite accurate in depiction the Jews the way he did. He's satirising the religion and culture described in the book.

I think this is a very good point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: