Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2016, 09:38 AM
Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
The Samaritans rejected Jesus because "his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem" and he "set his face to go to Jerusalem". Strange, never did understand what that could mean, they even use that twice as if Luke was trying to emphasize it. But now I finally know where that comes from:

[Image: v9dmy0q3sc3y.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2016, 06:03 PM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(13-12-2016 09:38 AM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  The Samaritans rejected Jesus because "his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem" and he "set his face to go to Jerusalem". Strange, never did understand what that could mean, they even use that twice as if Luke was trying to emphasize it. But now I finally know where that comes from:

[Image: v9dmy0q3sc3y.png]

I see the analogy....but it is a little tenuous. Not sure I completely understand your reasoning.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2016, 07:35 PM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(13-12-2016 06:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I see the analogy....but it is a little tenuous. Not sure I completely understand your reasoning.

Well, you have to remember that at this point in the history Nero is still the deified emperor of the inhabitable earth, so he is represented as God and Vespasian is the one sent to do the will of God on earth (Israel), so he is the son of God. Remember that in Greek satire the characters represent more of a role to play (or even just a force of nature) than a specific person. Who the character represents is more fluid in a satire, this is not an encoding of Josephus.

Now, the works of Josephus, pretty much everyone agrees, are basically Roman propaganda. Josephus (whose entire nation was just slaughtered in front of his eyes over 3.5 years) was constantly praising the Romans (possibly just to save his own life, but maybe he actually believed it or convinced himself to believe it) and saying that God's favor had gone over to the Romans and painting their actions in a good light. So if we were to write a satire of Josephus we would exaggerate that, we would call Rome the kingdom of God. Then all you need to do is remove all those bad sounding words like besiege and slaughter and say, since we are praising them as the ones doing God's work on earth, we will replace those words with things like "baptize" and "heal" and "cast out devils", paint everything in a better light and hide the bad stuff even better. So in this case if you remove "besiege" then Jesus "arose in appearance to go to Jerusalem" or he had "his face set as though he would go to Jerusalem". It sounds funny, but only if you know the reference does it make sense.

Then Josephus tells us that the Jews, out of good will to the Romans, were killing a bunch of their own people. That sounds insane. What a great kingdom of God where we kill ourselves to make God happy. How can Josephus be praising these guys? So we make fun of that and put those guys who were showing their "good will" to the Romans as the disciples of Jesus, James and John who say "Lord, shall we rain down fire from heaven on these guys out of our good will to you?" But Josephus just told us that Vespasian came only in appearance to besiege Jerusalem, "but in reality, to deliver them"! Didn't you know, he is the son of God, he came to save the Jews (which he did a wonderful job of, I might add). So we make fun of that by having Jesus say "the son of man is come to save men's lives, not destroy them!" he, he, he. It is ironic because actually he did destroy them all in the end, even though Josephus tells us he went to deliver them.

It's hilarious, but they always say a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it. Anyway, I hope this helps to understand it. I would say this parallel is actually quite solid, it fits the same pattern and style of satire repeated hundreds of times and has four plot points in common, they are pretty much the same story.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2016, 09:52 PM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(13-12-2016 07:35 PM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  
(13-12-2016 06:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I see the analogy....but it is a little tenuous. Not sure I completely understand your reasoning.

Well, you have to remember that at this point in the history Nero is still the deified emperor of the inhabitable earth, so he is represented as God and Vespasian is the one sent to do the will of God on earth (Israel), so he is the son of God. Remember that in Greek satire the characters represent more of a role to play (or even just a force of nature) than a specific person. Who the character represents is more fluid in a satire, this is not an encoding of Josephus.

Now, the works of Josephus, pretty much everyone agrees, are basically Roman propaganda. Josephus (whose entire nation was just slaughtered in front of his eyes over 3.5 years) was constantly praising the Romans (possibly just to save his own life, but maybe he actually believed it or convinced himself to believe it) and saying that God's favor had gone over to the Romans and painting their actions in a good light. So if we were to write a satire of Josephus we would exaggerate that, we would call Rome the kingdom of God. Then all you need to do is remove all those bad sounding words like besiege and slaughter and say, since we are praising them as the ones doing God's work on earth, we will replace those words with things like "baptize" and "heal" and "cast out devils", paint everything in a better light and hide the bad stuff even better. So in this case if you remove "besiege" then Jesus "arose in appearance to go to Jerusalem" or he had "his face set as though he would go to Jerusalem". It sounds funny, but only if you know the reference does it make sense.

Then Josephus tells us that the Jews, out of good will to the Romans, were killing a bunch of their own people. That sounds insane. What a great kingdom of God where we kill ourselves to make God happy. How can Josephus be praising these guys? So we make fun of that and put those guys who were showing their "good will" to the Romans as the disciples of Jesus, James and John who say "Lord, shall we rain down fire from heaven on these guys out of our good will to you?" But Josephus just told us that Vespasian came only in appearance to besiege Jerusalem, "but in reality, to deliver them"! Didn't you know, he is the son of God, he came to save the Jews (which he did a wonderful job of, I might add). So we make fun of that by having Jesus say "the son of man is come to save men's lives, not destroy them!" he, he, he. It is ironic because actually he did destroy them all in the end, even though Josephus tells us he went to deliver them.

It's hilarious, but they always say a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it. Anyway, I hope this helps to understand it. I would say this parallel is actually quite solid, it fits the same pattern and style of satire repeated hundreds of times and has four plot points in common, they are pretty much the same story.

Thanks for this. I'm a tad closer to understanding you.

So...um...who are the Samaritans (as per the gospel) in the Josephus text?

Who are the messengers (as per the gospel) in the Josephus text?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 01:08 AM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(13-12-2016 07:35 PM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  
(13-12-2016 06:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I see the analogy....but it is a little tenuous. Not sure I completely understand your reasoning.

Well, you have to remember that at this point in the history Nero is still the deified emperor of the inhabitable earth, so he is represented as God and Vespasian is the one sent to do the will of God on earth (Israel), so he is the son of God. Remember that in Greek satire the characters represent more of a role to play (or even just a force of nature) than a specific person. Who the character represents is more fluid in a satire, this is not an encoding of Josephus.

Now, the works of Josephus, pretty much everyone agrees, are basically Roman propaganda. Josephus (whose entire nation was just slaughtered in front of his eyes over 3.5 years) was constantly praising the Romans (possibly just to save his own life, but maybe he actually believed it or convinced himself to believe it) and saying that God's favor had gone over to the Romans and painting their actions in a good light. So if we were to write a satire of Josephus we would exaggerate that, we would call Rome the kingdom of God. Then all you need to do is remove all those bad sounding words like besiege and slaughter and say, since we are praising them as the ones doing God's work on earth, we will replace those words with things like "baptize" and "heal" and "cast out devils", paint everything in a better light and hide the bad stuff even better. So in this case if you remove "besiege" then Jesus "arose in appearance to go to Jerusalem" or he had "his face set as though he would go to Jerusalem". It sounds funny, but only if you know the reference does it make sense.

Then Josephus tells us that the Jews, out of good will to the Romans, were killing a bunch of their own people. That sounds insane. What a great kingdom of God where we kill ourselves to make God happy. How can Josephus be praising these guys? So we make fun of that and put those guys who were showing their "good will" to the Romans as the disciples of Jesus, James and John who say "Lord, shall we rain down fire from heaven on these guys out of our good will to you?" But Josephus just told us that Vespasian came only in appearance to besiege Jerusalem, "but in reality, to deliver them"! Didn't you know, he is the son of God, he came to save the Jews (which he did a wonderful job of, I might add). So we make fun of that by having Jesus say "the son of man is come to save men's lives, not destroy them!" he, he, he. It is ironic because actually he did destroy them all in the end, even though Josephus tells us he went to deliver them.

It's hilarious, but they always say a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it. Anyway, I hope this helps to understand it. I would say this parallel is actually quite solid, it fits the same pattern and style of satire repeated hundreds of times and has four plot points in common, they are pretty much the same story.

You can use these parallels to show that the works were written with reference to each other. The more parallels, the greater the chance of that.

When you go beyond that, and say it is a "satire", that is where you begin to impose your own views on it.

It's not funny when you have to explain it, that's true. But it's not funny at all, to me. I see no humour in it at all. Sorry, I think that is just your own perspective and it is based on your analysis of Josephs motives etc.

Christian study has focused on the similarities between and sources of the Gospels for many years. I studied this at university.

Where this needs to go, first, is with a study of how and when these works were written.

I think you are seeing a Roman satire of Near East "animism". Rome had been gripped by a return to this sort of religion and culture under the Claudians and Hellenistic thinkers in Alexandria would have seen this same religion in Egypt and in the Near East. That is the basis of the introduction of Serapism and then Christianity so the satire is of the religion which was barbaric and backward in the eyes of Hellenistic thinkers.

When you say this is satirical, I think you underestimate the fear under which Romans lived with the Claudians and with the wars in the Near East. There were clear attempt to deduce an ethical morality from Judaism and spread it around the Near East and that is what Rabbi Eleazar was doing when he converted Queen Helena. That is also what Paul is doing when he travels to existing "Christian" (more likely Serapis worshipping) communities around the near east. This was no laughing matter. As you say, it was propaganda, as was the New Testament and I don't see how you can say it is satirical.

I would like to see more of an exposition of your thesis that it was satire, based on something beyond your own view of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 05:40 AM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2016 05:48 AM by fhqwhgads.)
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(18-12-2016 01:08 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You can use these parallels to show that the works were written with reference to each other. The more parallels, the greater the chance of that.


No! You cannot! Stop saying stupid things! Are you Joseph Atwill?
Parallels ONLY show that at least one source knew about the other. If you wrote a book and I plagiarize it does not prove that you knew that I was plagiarizing it, it does not prove that we did it together and planned it, and it does not prove that we are the same person. It only proves that at least I knew about your work, not necessarily the other way around. Are you reading anything I write? Because I told you that many times now. Stop saying such stupid shit, please. Logic only works if you are careful with your words.

(18-12-2016 01:08 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  When you go beyond that, and say it is a "satire", that is where you begin to impose your own views on it.

Atwill is the one imposing his fantasies about Roman authorship here without evidence. I am not trying to guess who the author is because we don't have any evidence for authorship. I am sticking to the facts, what was written. I am only asking what are the Gospels. If I find 480 examples of where the Gospel passages are an ironic representation of something in Josephus then I conclude the Gospels are a satire. I have the facts to back it up.


(18-12-2016 01:08 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It's not funny when you have to explain it, that's true. But it's not funny at all, to me. I see no humour in it at all. Sorry, I think that is just your own perspective and it is based on your analysis of Josephs motives etc.

Maybe the problem is you don't understand what irony and satire are. Here are a few definitions:

-"the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
-"a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result."
-"a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character."

It doesn't have to be funny to you to be ironic. It is ironic that baby Jesus was found in a feeding trough, gets anointed with cooking oils and herbs, and is literally supposed to be eaten by his followers when Mary roasted and ate her baby in the war with the Romans. It is ironic because it is as if the Christians don't know they are reenacting filicide and cannibalism in church and worshiping a genocide. The joke is on them. But I have 480 examples of such horrific irony from the New Testament.

Also, here is the definition of satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

It does not have to be funny to be satire, also because not everyone will find the same things humorous. But irony is not so subjective, you can agree that it is ironic and maybe teaching a lesson or expressing an opinion without making you laugh.

(18-12-2016 01:08 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think you are seeing a Roman satire of Near East "animism". Rome had been gripped by a return to this sort of religion and culture under the Claudians and Hellenistic thinkers in Alexandria would have seen this same religion in Egypt and in the Near East. That is the basis of the introduction of Serapism and then Christianity so the satire is of the religion which was barbaric and backward in the eyes of Hellenistic thinkers.

Oh, so now you accept that it is satire but desperately want to see it as Roman satire because of your fantasies of Rome being the center of the universe and think those war generals, the Flavians, were skilled in satire and literature. But then you finally agree that the satire is done "in the eyes of Hellenistic thinkers". So, most likely Greeks or someone trained in Greek satire and literature, right?

(18-12-2016 01:08 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  When you say this is satirical, I think you underestimate the fear under which Romans lived with the Claudians and with the wars in the Near East. This was no laughing matter. As you say, it was propaganda, as was the New Testament and I don't see how you can say it is satirical.

No. I don't. The Romans living in fear does not prove who wrote the Gospels. Again, stop saying stupid things, be logical. I am only talking about the texts themselves, what are they, because we have them and we can read them, we can't talk to the authors and we don't have much evidence of who they were except that they were probably fluent in Greek and trained in Greek literature and knew enough about Judaism and had access to that information, so probably scholars.

(18-12-2016 01:08 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I would like to see more of an exposition of your thesis that it was satire, based on something beyond your own view of it.

You can't. As far as I can tell this is an entirely original thesis. If you want to know more about it, come to me. To me it is the most obvious and natural thesis. The Romans didn't have a great tradition in literature that the Greeks had and the Flavians were warriors, not religion inventors with advanced skills in literary techniques. And Greeks wrote satires, that was kind of their thing. My thesis only requires that you accept that most people were how they were. The Jews believed so much in their God that they were willing to die for him, the Romans wanted to be worshiped as God by the Jews so badly that they were willing to kill for it. That is a deadly combination that ended up in a horrific genocide. The Greeks were the scholars sitting by, thinking this is so ridiculous and writing satires about it. This is not the evidence that it is a satire, this just shows that Greeks writing a satire about this is not very surprising. In fact we know that the Greeks were writing satires about Josephus' history because he complained about that in his later works. But the evidence is that almost every single passage in the Gospels and book of Revelation is almost the exact same story as a passage in Josephus except that it is ironic. If you want to see more of the evidence (480 more examples of irony like this one), read the book, or wait for me to post more here or ask me for a specific passage from the Gospels or book of Revelation and maybe I will post it.
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
18-12-2016, 06:28 AM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(18-12-2016 05:40 AM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  The Romans didn't have a great tradition in literature that the Greeks had and the Flavians were warriors, not religion inventors with advanced skills in literary techniques.

No fucking clue about ancient Rome.

If you do not understand a subject, STFU.

Readers may see your ignorance.

As an avid historian of Rome I find you to be an idiot.

Fuck off.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 07:33 AM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(18-12-2016 06:28 AM)Banjo Wrote:  No fucking clue about ancient Rome.

If you do not understand a subject, STFU.

Readers may see your ignorance.

As an avid historian of Rome I find you to be an idiot.

Fuck off.

Seriously? You are an "avid historian of Rome" and you are going to tell me they had at that time as developed of a tradition of satire and literature as the Greeks? And we are talking about something even written in Greek not Latin. And you are going to tell me you prefer the "Flavian Signature" hypothesis that it was actually the Flavians and Josephus who wrote the Gospels in Greek and not more likely some Greek scholars?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 07:44 AM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
Anyway, staying away from Atwill's crazy, distracting, unsupported theory about the Flavians and Josephus writing the Gospels, a much more important/fundamental question than authorship is what exactly they wrote.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: Samaritans Reject Jesus (satire)
(18-12-2016 06:28 AM)Banjo Wrote:  No fucking clue about ancient Rome.

If you do not understand a subject, STFU.

Readers may see your ignorance.

As an avid historian of Rome I find you to be an idiot.

Fuck off.

Also, you are going to tell me to fuck off and not the guy who says that similarities between Josephus and the NT prove they were written by the same person??? That guy has no understanding of words.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: