History trumps Theology

[allegoria]

whitewash its anti humanitarian reality disturbing

If it is anti-humanitarian, then we should see that humanitarianism begins with non-Christians. We would also see that Christians donate the least to humanitarian organizations. We don’t see this. Some of the first humanitarians were Christians and Christians donate the most to humanitarian organizations. How, then, can it be anti-humanitarian? Even human rights as an international concept begins with Christians!

So what do you mean by “humanitarian” and how do you see it in conflict with Christianity?

[maryhelena]

whitewash its anti humanitarian reality disturbing

If it is anti-humanitarian, then we should see that humanitarianism begins with non-Christians. We would also see that Christians donate the least to humanitarian organizations. We don’t see this. Some of the first humanitarians were Christians and Christians donate the most to humanitarian organizations. How, then, can it be anti-humanitarian? Even human rights as an international concept begins with Christians!

So what do you mean by “humanitarian” and how do you see it in conflict with Christianity?

I'm not interested in Christian charity or humanitarian efforts. I'm interested in Christianity's core theological doctrine ie it's cross theology. Ie a flesh and blood man died on Calvery's cross for the sins of his followers. A human flesh and blood 'sacrifice' is an abomination. Which basically translates into Christianity falling on its own petard. If human flesh and blood sacrifice is one's core value then one is simply setting oneself up to self destruct.... A phenomenon empty churches suggest is not far away. The theological core is rotten. Yes, people want religion in their lives.... Interesting, some people are turning to Christianity but by passing, as it were, it's questionable theological baggage. (Ayaan Hirsi Ali for instance) That theological baggage arises from a belief in a human sacrifice on Calvary's cross.

[davidmartin]

which is interesting from a historicist perspective
if your beloved leader suffers such a fate as to be crucified the memorial and remembrance of such would be expected to feature
but that is not the same thing as a theology based around the event
this is exactly what we see in the Odes where the event is memorialised but does not have the sacrifice theology. This is what interests me, we have an early text like this but it is ignored wholesale by almost all parties. I won't rest until i understand why this is, why would a key text be ignored that would go a long way to solve things. i'd be happy if we had a corner where the Odes were established like 'ok, so this is what the Odes say' but there is nothing like that. in a word, the Odes memorialise the cross and remember the suffering of it without a theological meaning, as would be expected of a group whose founder had gone through this and they wish to treasure his memory

[StephenGoranson]

To declare that gospel writers were secretly referring to the death (by which means is uncertain) of the last Hasmonean claimant, without evidence, is mere unsupported opinion, not history research.

[dbz]

[T]he Odes memorialise the cross and remember the suffering of it without a theological meaning, as would be expected of a group whose founder had gone through this and they wish to treasure his memory

Who has published on this viewpoint?

[Charles Wilson]

To declare that gospel writers were secretly referring to the death (by which means is uncertain) of the last Hasmonean claimant, without evidence, is mere unsupported opinion, not history research.

From a False Premise, anything follows. You know that SG. So it is here.

There is plenty of Evidence for Hasmonean History and more. Maryhelena has completed wonderful work on the Last Hasmonean King and her results are there for all to see.

I believe, however, that there is more. I believe that there are Time Markers left in the Data of the Gospels that point to Intentionality. Someone (Zakkai? Others?) left Clues and these Clues are built around the Passover of 9 CE, with some evidence that the Story began with the March to Jerusalem in very late 8 CE.

There are several places to begin but Mark's version is a good place to start.
1. Jairus begs the "Jesus" character to come and raise his Daughter. The Daughter is 12 years old. This Story is within a Section that tells of the "Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood".

Now, I have already asked you to verify that the Mishmarot Groups "Bilgah" and "Immer" are on Service Duty for the Passover and Feast Week where 3000 are killed. You have steadfastly refused to Prove this so don't even start to argue that this is incorrect.

Eisenman and Wise (and others) have stated that the Mishmarot Cycle repeats every 6 years. If "Jairus' Daughter" and "The Woman..." are Symbolic and not simply "Miracle Stories" then Jairus is "Looking Back" to 12 years of Death and Blood. He is looking at a Political Movement which he is begging the "Jesus" character to recover with one Last Try against the Herodians and Romans (Remember, the little girl is not dead but merely sleeping. The Jerusalem Ruling Class "..has no King but Caesar". This is Political.)

This is all Speculation unless the 9 CE Passover brings with it something of value.

Luke 2: 36 - 38 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
[38] And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

What happened 84 years before 8/9 CE?
Jannaeus dies and the widow Salome becomes Queen.

John 2: 20 (RSV):

[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 16, 4:

"And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family. "

You need to buy maryhelena a latte for all the good work she has done.

John 5: 2 – 6 (RSV):

"[2] Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za'tha, which has five porticoes.
[3] In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed.
[5] One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years.
[6] When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there a long time, he said to him, "Do you want to be healed?"

John Hyrcanus 2, brother of Aristobulus 2, a legitimate Hasmonaean King and High Priest, is killed by Herod in 30 BCE.

...And on and on and on and on.

There is one Time Marker that doesn't work and it's the child "Jesus" found in the Temple after his family leaves Jerusalem to return home. Luke.

I KNOW what your first response will be: "What coincidence!!!" You've got to better than that, however, since you may Map the History here and it aligns.

There is evidence everywhere if only you would look.
Why won't you?

CW

[StephenGoranson]

Speculations are different than well-history-established conclusions.
It might be interesting to hear whether maryhelena accepts those assertions of Charles Wilson.

[Charles Wilson]

I left one out.

Luke 13: 11 - 16 (RSV):

[11] And there was a woman who had had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years; she was bent over and could not fully straighten herself.
[12] And when Jesus saw her, he called her and said to her, "Woman, you are freed from your infirmity."
[13] And he laid his hands upon her, and immediately she was made straight, and she praised God.
[14] But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the sabbath, said to the people, "There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be healed, and not on the sabbath day."
[15] Then the Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead it away to water it?
[16] And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?"

Notice the first sentence below. If you work backwards for the construction of the Temple, you find that it leads to 10 BCE and the opening of the Cloisters, as you would expect if looking back from 8/9 CE. The Woman Bent Over is freed from her Oppression, freed from SATAN (Herod).

Josephus, Antiquities..., 15,11, 6:

But the temple itself was built by the priests in a year and six months; upon which all the people were full of joy; and presently they returned thanks, in the first place, to God; and in the next place, for the alacrity the king had showed. They feasted and celebrated this rebuilding of the temple: and for the king, he sacrificed three hundred oxen to God, as did the rest every one according to his ability; the number of which sacrifices is not possible to set down, for it cannot be that we should truly relate it; for at the same time with this celebration for the work about the temple fell also the day of the king's inauguration, which he kept of an old custom as a festival, and it now coincided with the other, which coincidence of them both made the festival most illustrious.

So you worship God at the Temple and worship Herod on the same Celebration Day as the Opening of the Temple.
This is very, very obvious as being very, very Political.

CW

[Charles Wilson]

Note:
I always look for little Clues in the Text and there is one here:

Luke 13: 16 (RSV, emph. added.):

[16] And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?"

So we have "...a daughter of Abraham" paired against "Satan". Once again, Herod was an Idumean.
Political, over and over again.

CW

[StephenGoranson]

However one dates the four canonical gospels we have, they were written to be understood by a Greek-speaking audience. The majority of that audience, like the majority of ancient peoples, were illiterate, so many people had the gospels read to them. I suggest that these gospels were meant to be understood without extensive hidden clues that needed deciphering.

(The Apocalypse of John may be a different story, though even its anti-Rome attitude is not hard to get.)(And, there may be a self-censoring aspect to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," given that different people--ears to hear--would apportion things differently.)

So, besides my not finding, for example, that these gospels somehow really, specifically, referred to the last and long-past Hasmonean claimant, I also, additionally, consider an presumption of such hidden interpretations not plausible, generally.
These gospels have been commented on so many times. Did they all, for so many centuries, miss, for example, a delayed mourning for the last Hasmonean claimant as if it were central?