Jesus: Myth, or Man?

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@DrDeth

As I said, He was part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib. I never mentioned Hillel or the Nasi

No, you did not. You apparently did not know enough to do so.

Try to grasp the following:
[ul][li]being “part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib” does not constitute being related to Sanhedrin or “part of that caste” [/li][*]receiving instructions from the Sanhedrin does not constitute being related to Sanhedrin or “part of that caste”[/ul]And precisely what “cast” did you have in mind?

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@Frylock

I am saying that others have wrongly argued that jews “would not have believed in” Jesus because of his crucifixion, and I have been arguing that they were wrong to so argue.

Then let’s end on this note of agreement.

[Frylock]

@Jayhawker_Soule

Then let’s end on this note of agreement.

……

[DrDeth]

[quote=“Jayhawker_Soule, post:281, topic:742392”]

No, you did not. You apparently did not know enough to do so.

Try to grasp the following:
[ul][li]being “part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib” does not constitute being related to Sanhedrin or “part of that caste” [/li][li]receiving instructions from the Sanhedrin does not constitute being related to Sanhedrin or “part of that caste”[/ul]And precisely what “cast” did you have in mind?[/li][/QUOTE]

For the nth time, the Priestly order of Jehoiarib.

Read his autobiography. Related to the Royal family and part of the Priestly caste.

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@Frylock

Which one?

Sorry … I missed this. I had in mind volume 1.

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@DrDeth

For the nth time, the Priestly order of Jehoiarib.

What does this have to do with the 1st Century CE Sanhedrin?

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@Frylock

……

…:)…

[Frylock]

@Jayhawker_Soule

…:)…

……

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@Frylock

@SmartAlecCat

I kind of like the Flavian theory:

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Another point of agreement.

[Sage_Rat]

@Frylock

I am just insisting that they’re not sources.

Good for you, the point would remain that there’s no reason to doubt that men who were strongly attached to Jesus’ church in Jerusalem, followed Jesus’ teachings, lived within the same time period as the life of Jesus and St Peter (1AD-70AD), held that Jesus’ was fairly non-magical, mostly inherited his church from John the Baptist, and grew up in Nazareth (a shanty town).

In both Gnostic and Pauline churches, you start getting all the wacky stuff (which didn’t make it into the Bible) about Jesus’ infancy and other tall tales, until the 3rd century. And most of the things which are clearly magical or ahistoric, which are in the Bible, are things which are necessarily added to make Jesus into the Messiah or to explain Jesus’ appearance to Paul, despite being dead.

[Sage_Rat]

@Frylock

(Another wrong detail–the standard idea is that Paul had this experience for the first time before the Christian man took care of him, not during this care.)

You’re stating that you accept Paul, FRIGGIN SAINT PAUL, as an unimpeachably honest man? It just so happens (without magic) that he falls sick at the same exact time as Ananias is going out to find him and that (without magic) he suddenly is cured, but somehow still needs to stay with Ananias and the other disciples for a few days? And suddenly, without any of these Christian disciples having told him a single thing about God or Jesus in those several days - because why would they - and regardless of his fame as a persecutor of Christians, Paul comes out of it knowing about God purely through divine revelation and decides to start up a life preaching a religion that focuses strongly on peace and kindness towards ones enemies?

Personally, I doubt Paul’s story. I find far more plausible to believe that he knew about Christianity already a little bit, that he was laid up for a while with Ananias, who was feeding Christianity into the sick and crazed man like anything else, and Paul came out of it realizing that he’d been saved by the people he’d persecuted and suffered a crisis of conscience.

It might not match exactly what’s in the account (Acts 9), but it requires a lot less magic, and aligns with the other facts we know a lot better.

[DrDeth]

@Jayhawker_Soule

What does this have to do with the 1st Century CE Sanhedrin?

I really dont know what point you’re trying to make. Josephus was a special envoy of the Sanhedrin, a position you dont get unless you’re part of the first families. He was part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib, and related to the Royal family. Read his biography. Read any of the dozens of cites I have given you.

Now, before you continue with your endless "Just Asking Questions’- please show me a cite that sez Josephus was NOT a envoy of the Sanhedrin, or a part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib, or related to the Royal family.

Put up or shut up.

[Frylock]

@Sage_Rat

You’re stating that you accept Paul, FRIGGIN SAINT PAUL, as an unimpeachably honest man? .

Neither said nor implied.

I was reminding you of what the standard account is, as I was assuming that was what you were trying to retell–since you offered none of the qualifications I would have expected otherwise, and since your position in this thread would naturally lead one to suppose that you’re not going to be presenting any speculations or theories you’d come up with yourself as though they were clear established facts…

Personally I doubt Paul’s story too. But I wouldn’t say, as you did, as though it were a well known fact, that he first heard of Jesus from a Christian man caring for him while sick. I have no idea where he first heard of Jesus. I have no idea whether a Christian man cared for him while sick.

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@DrDeth

Now, before you continue with your endless "Just Asking Questions’- please show me a cite that sez Josephus was NOT a envoy of the Sanhedrin, …

Seriously! :rolleyes:

@DrDeth

…, or a part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib, or related to the Royal family.

What does being of priestly descent have to do with the 1st Century CE Sanhedrin?

@DrDeth

Put up or shut up.

Whine less.

[DrDeth]

@Jayhawker_Soule

Seriously! :rolleyes:

What does being of priestly descent have to do with the 1st Century CE Sanhedrin?

Whine less.

Still 100% fact and cite free!:eek:

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@DrDeth

Still 100% fact and cite free!:eek:

For the third time, what does being of priestly descent have to do with the 1st Century CE Sanhedrin?

[DrDeth]

@Jayhawker_Soule

For the third time, what does being of priestly descent have to do with the 1st Century CE Sanhedrin?

What does anything have to do with anything? I dont understand your question. Are you implying the Sanhedrin had no members of priestly descent or that Josephus was not of priestly descent?

It was preferred that "*the members of the Sanhedrin be chosen from people of unbroken descent, as in the case of all positions of authority, … It is preferable that the Sanhedrin contain Kohen-priests and Levites as members. It is thus written, “You shall come to the Kohen-priest and Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days”
*

Have you any facts or cites or are you just going to ask questions?

[Jayhawker_Soule]

@DrDeth

What does anything have to do with anything? I dont understand your question. Are you implying the Sanhedrin had no members of priestly descent or that Josephus was not of priestly descent?

It was preferred that "*the members of the Sanhedrin be chosen from people of unbroken descent, as in the case of all positions of authority, … It is preferable that the Sanhedrin contain Kohen-priests and Levites as members. It is thus written, “You shall come to the Kohen-priest and Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days”
*

Have you any facts or cites or are you just going to ask questions?

Again, from Wikipedia:

The Sanhedrin as a body claimed powers that lesser Jewish courts did not have. As such, they were the only ones who could try the king, extend the boundaries of the Temple and Jerusalem, and were the ones to whom all questions of law were finally put. Before 191 BC the High Priest acted as the ex officio head of the Sanhedrin,[citation needed] but in 191 BCE, when the Sanhedrin lost confidence in the High Priest, the office of Nasi was created. After the time of Hillel the Elder (late 1st century BCE and early 1st century CE), the Nasi was almost invariably a descendant of Hillel. The second highest-ranking member of the Sanhedrin was called the Av Beit Din, or “Head of the Court” (literally, Av Beit Din = “father of the house of judgment”), who presided over the Sanhedrin when it sat as a criminal court.

[Stringbean]

I suspect that most Jews at the time would have likened a rebellious war-leader like Simon bar Kopkha to a messiah (“Savior” from the Romans) rather than a pacifist miracle-worker who said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Am I wrong?

[DrDeth]

@Jayhawker_Soule

Again, from Wikipedia:

What the *holy fuck *does that have to do with anything? Yes, the Nasi (often traslated as “President”) was traditionally a descendant of Hillel the Elder. (Sometimes called the Father of modern Rabbis)

There were traditionally **71 **members of the Sanhedrin. Most were of the priestly order, members of which were then related in some fashion (same tribe). Josephus was thus related to many of them.

No, Josephus was not a direct descendant of Hillel - but only the President of the Sanhedrin was traditionally so. Simeon ben Gamliel was the* Nasi* during the time of Josephus, and they were compatriots.