Steefen said:
I’m satisfied that we disagree on this like you said. No further discussion needed on my side.
I’ve already done a video on Ammon. That’s not the issue that is imperative for me.
I’m not changing my mind on that.
Why wouldn’t you change your mind if I presented a solid case? Even if given incontrovertible evidence?
You say no language is superior to another.
OMG, this guy is merely an idiot cult disciple of Ammon!
Hard to argue with that.
One of the difficulties one faces in trying to make sense (a fool’s errand I know) of Ammon is that with the exception of his two books (2012 and 2014), you must watch him on video. That last one with Luke wasn’t too bad, but others where he’s the only guest or especially when he’s on his own, he really starts going off his rocker.
For those who might be interested in why Ammon’s claim that Hebrew is invented is foundational:
By saying that the Septuagint was originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew, he views passages only through Greek lenses and completely ignores Hebrew meanings and Jewish interpretation.
By saying that the Septuagint was originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew, he views passages only through Greek lenses and completely ignores Hebrew meanings and Jewish interpretation.
I don’t know enough about Ammon personally (thank god!) to make any accusations but I can say in the past attempts to marginalize or dismiss Jewish interpretation have often been accompanied by deep-seated antisemitism. Of course Ammon can be full of sh*t without being antisemitic.
I don’t know enough about Ammon personally (thank god!)
Blessed is he who has never heard of him.
the past attempts to marginalize or dismiss Jewish interpretation have often been accompanied by deep-seated antisemitism. Of course Ammon can be full of sh*t without being antisemitic.
Yes, for certain what you say about marginalizing or dismissing Jewish interpretation is true.
My impression, for what it’s worth, is that he’s not antisemitic but just full of sh*t. I also think he’s crazier than a loon*.
In searching to see what I could find, I did come across ** you do not have permission to see this link **, where someone says “there is an increase in streams that promote his unique anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” on his YouTube channel, but I haven’t looked into it, so I’m not sure it’s true. To be honest, I don’t think I have the stomach to watch any other videos of his especially when he’s on his own.
*Hearing a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is an unforgettable experience.
Picking up on the Gnostic Informant Review of Ammon vs. Luke Gorton then Debating Ammonites
2 hour 53 minute mark
Gnostic Informant:
The messiah in Daniel is not the messiah you get in the first century CE.
= = = =
Gnostic Informant:
Ammon is a theologian pushing Borborite theology.
A Video Super Chat starts at 3:33.49:
Will you guys cover some of the claims made by Joseph Yahuda’s ‘Hebrew is Greek’ given Ammon counts him as supporting his position? Thanks for the vid
= = ==
Steefen:
I’ll start the remainder of my viewing of this video at the point.
Sepphoris came up in the discussion:
- Initial Action: Herod the Great captured the city in 37 BCE, turning it into a stronghold.
- Development: While Herod the Great established a palace/fortress there, the significant expansion into a major Roman-style city with a theater and colonnaded streets was undertaken by his son, Herod Antipas.
- Capital Status: Herod Antipas made it his administrative capital immediately following his father’s death.
It is carved into the northern slope of the hill, seating approximately 4,000 to 5,000 spectators.
- Purpose & Features: The stone-seated, Roman-style theater hosted comedies, mimes, and circus acts.
- Location: It is situated on the upper city’s northern scarp.
- Construction Context: The structure is part of a larger 2nd-century urban expansion, although some archaeologists consider an earlier date.
- Condition: It was renovated over time and used throughout the Roman period.
Steefen:
Could Herod Antipas have supported the gospels because he did not want his kingdom to be remembered by the Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee? So, I’m noting not only Flavius Josephus, the TF and the two passages after it but also a possible Herod Antipas motivation involved in the gospels.
Steefen:
Could Herod Antipas have supported the gospels because he did not want his kingdom to be remembered by the Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee? So, I’m noting not only Flavius Josephus, the TF and the two passages after it but also a possible Herod Antipas motivation involved in the gospels.
should be
Steefen:
Could Herod Agrippa II have supported the gospels because he did not want his kingdom to be remembered by the Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee? So, I’m noting not only Flavius Josephus, the TF and the two passages after it but also a possible Herod Agrippa II motivation involved in the gospels.
= = =
Herod Antipas, (Ancient Greek: Ἡρῴδης Ἀντίπας, romanized: Hērṓidēs Antípas; c. 20 BC – c. 39 AD) was a 1st-century Herodian ruler of Galilee and Perea, in the time of the Herodian Tetrarchy. He bore the title of tetrarch (“ruler of a quarter”) and is referred to as both “Herod the Tetrarch” and “King Herod” in the New Testament.[1] He was a son of Herod the Great and a grandson of Antipater the Idumaean. He is widely known today for his role in the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 14:1–12, Luke 23:5–12).
Marcus Julius Agrippa I (c. 11 BC – c. AD 44), also known as Agrippa I (Hebrew: אגריפס, epithet Agrippa the Great) or Herod Agrippa, was a Roman citizen, under the patronage of Antonia Minor, friend of Roman emperors Caligula and Claudius, and the last client king of Judea (r. 41-44). He was a grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne I, the father of Herod Agrippa II, the last known king from the Hasmonean branch of the Herodian dynasty.[Note 1] He played crucial roles in internal Roman politics under Caligula and was a “kingmaker” of Claudius, as part of the Antonii-family and familia Caesaris. In return he was rewarded with the kingship of Judea, which brought a short but successful period of relative independence to Judea and significant influence in the Eastern Roman Empire.
Herod Agrippa II (Roman name: Marcus Julius Agrippa, Hebrew: אגריפס; AD 27/28[1] – c. 92 or 100[1][2]), sometimes shortened to Agrippa II or Agrippa, was the last ruler from the Herodian dynasty, reigning over territories outside of Judea as a Roman client. Agrippa II fled Jerusalem in 66, fearing the Jewish uprising, and he supported the Roman side in the First Jewish–Roman War.
Herod Antipas was the uncle of Marcus Julius Agrippa.
So, my historical Jesus of Galilee IS the historical Jesus of Galilee.
Did Jesus exist?
Steefen: Yes.
You’ve written the book Historical Accuracy, is the existence of Jesus historically accurate?
Steefen: Yes, there was a historical Jesus of Galilee but the the Gospels placed him back in time, not when he actually was a leader in Galilee. The Roman procurator Gessius Florus (64-66 CE) did not send Jesus to Agrippa II. With more exactitude, there was no active Roman procurator in Judea in 67 CE because the administration had shifted to direct military control under Vespasian who was sent by Nero. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas? No, Jesus dealt directly with Vespasian and lost.
Steefen said
Dr. Ehrman,
Finkelstein, the scholar, in The Quest for the Historical Israel, said
Hebrew writing started around the 8th or 9th century BCE. Meaningful writing started around the 8th century BCE.
This is after the historical Labaya (who lived during Ancient Egypt’s Armana period); the biblical King Saul, King David, and King Solomon.
From what Finkelstein said, Psalms and Proverbs would not be meaningful Hebrew writing.
Question: In what language do you think Psalms and Proverbs were first written?
Question: Abraham came from Sumer but the language of Sumer did not influence the language of Ancient Hebrew.
Question: When Moses rewrote the destroyed Ten Commandments and the rewritten Ten Commandments were put into the Ark of the Covenant were they in the Ark that were to be placed into Solomon’s Temple?
If so, why would a scholar note consider those Ten Commandments meaningful Hebrew writing? I’m being told there is not historical connection between Moses and the first Temple because Abraham and Moses were theological developments after the ninth and tenth centuries BCE. Do you agree or have more to add?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Ehrman:
The stories of Abraham are probably not historical.
The authors of the Bible were not interested in those kinds of linguistic questions.
Too bad! It’d be interesting to know what they thought.
(They probably thought Hebrew was always the same from the time of Adam…)
BJH1960 said
Steefen, Posts 129-131 are just more notes for your book and questions you’re asking yourself and AI along with answers.
Do you not understand that the Readers Forum is a place where you’re supposed to interact with other members?
BJH,
No, those posts are for discussion.
Are they notes for your book? If so, why do you post them here? Is it so we can examine them carefully to see if they hold up to scrutiny?
And even more importantly, are we getting any royalties? Or least a mention in your acknowledgements section, thanking us for our invaluable contributions to your work?
BJH1960 said
Steefen, when you get a chance, would you please answer my questions in Post 135?
I’ve already answered that question.
People are forum members to understand Early Christianity better and to understand topics listed in the forums.
My book has a scope. Some things are in my book, some things are not–some things I post are just for my religious knowledge.
You do not have to ask this question again, right?
Steefen, I’m puzzled as to what you mean when you say “those posts are for discussion.”
If not to examine them critically, then what?
Out of curiosity, I thought I’d see what an AI chatbot had to say.
Claude told me that on an online forum it means that “the posts are intended to be engaged with through conversation and critical examination” and were “not just to be read passively or taken as final statements.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)