Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Sign in to follow this  
gilius

Caesar's Messiah proven - the Flavians invented Christianity!

Recommended Posts

Proof is divided into 3 parts (only Part 1 is covered in
my opening post):


 

1) Proof that one book is based on
another, a common source, or a lost third source

2) Proof that the parallels were designed for presenting satire and historical information
beyond the surface level narration

3) Proof that the books are actually of a common Flavian source (eliminating
the other two possibilities)


 

1) Do you at least agree from the below analysis that the
gospels are based heavily on Josephus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your getting better at presentation, the color coded tables in the first half was useful in trying to focus in on what your saying. You should provide a color coded key at the very beginning, delineating the class of sociological phenomena your focusing on, with a introductoryvexplanation to each color key's range of meaning.

 

This is indeed the best attempt you've made yet. It's almost to the point of peer review. Since this is a passion of yours, you should provide links to multiple new testament translations, given presenting only one translation in ENGLISH, and not the original language isn't going to cut it, people are going to be instictually suspicious, best to present variant public domain translations yourself. 

 

 

Same with Flavius' work, given I've seen more than one public domain translation of him out there, he didn't originally write in English, have the variation side by side. 

 

Clean it up..... 

 

This concludes the Aesthetic oriented Epistemoloical Aspect of my critic.... it doesn't take the facts persay into account, but the presentation. I didn't bother to proof check them to see if they are valid, one of the stricklers here can do that for us if they suspect falsification.

 

 

As to my thinking are they by chance? Yes, but due to circumstance specific to this Jewish Era. 

 

1) The Ptolemies actively courted the Jewish intelligences for state service, they were used as a intermediary caste for dealing with their Egyptian subjects. Hence why the old testament was translated into Greek by the elders of Jerusalem for Philadelphius, and the Alexandrian Jewish community, which had a well educated Jewish Elite. Rome inherited this system to a certain extent, it takes time for a well educated population to loose its intellectual identity. It was still going on during the Roman era. This means ideological influences on narrative and poetic descriptions are going to overlap for the two not so distant eras, given a shared literary corpus.

 

2) Flavius and Jesus both 'campaigned' in the sense of operating in a messiah prone era... Jesus wasn't the only spiritual or militant messiah. Jesus covered ALOT of ground. Had a lot of experiences.

 

3) Neither operated in a void of the other. Jesus chronologically came first, but Christians were already intellectually active in this era, and it has been dated..... we're talking pre written gospels. Christians most likely influenced Alexandria, and vice versa, in the same way the Baha'i are under the sway of New York. It's a world cultural capital, some cultural influences started hitting them day one, and intellectuals from the Baha'i moved to NYC affecting the intellectual scene. If in 100 years some big theological revolution occurs in NYC, it would be coincidence and not conspiracy.... even if you could chronologically track shared linguistic concepts or supposed first genesis of ideas. It's the weakness of Nietzsche 's emphasis of genealogical research of ideas (he surely didn't invent it, but did abuse it the best of all).

 

The other fault, purely on a logical and epistemological scale, is your whole emphasis rests on a well known Taboo by historians and philosophers known as Parallelomania

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania

 

It still have adherents in certain fields, such as Pre-Thales Philosophy, where every writer, thinker and trinketer is automatically assumed to of carried ideas whole and intact from India, and every writer, thinker in India is assumed to of gotten their ideas similarly from the west. This results in a absurd paradox of non origin, so they invariably point to the Babylonians, Catal Hulak or now even Gobekli Tepe as the one time in history any idea was first thought up, and pot smoking shamans deep on Jung carried civilization ever since, until it suddenly blossomed cryptically as if as new.

 

 

 

Similar attempts had been done with Christ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

 

It's usually not a Issue of NOT finding suspicious patterns around Christ, or any text for that matter to another, but the contradictory nature of all the parallel theories of Christ's secret origins. I can accept one purely by parallelism, but how do I juggle another similarly well articulated theory pointing out other parallels, one that can contradict my acceptance of your theory?

 

Can I in reason accept the Flavians Invented Christ, that Krishna was Christ, and that Christ was also a Buddhist Monk in Tibet, all the while being a tin trader in his youth in England, and spent time preaching Mormonism in the American South West while abiding by the will of the Islamic Allah, while being a reincarnation of Lao Tzu?

 

No..... hence why textual parallels can't be the primary evidence, but rather secondary supporting evidence. This doesn't inherently invalidate your theory, but does make your data inherently dependant on better data, such a dependable historic texts supporting your views, psychological and sociological analysis, or Archeology backing up your claims. 

 

As long as it is of a secondary tier, your parallels remain unproven. Perhaps intriguing, but still, unproven, as the default. You need that silver bullet proof..... something obvious like a text or archeological dig that makes it absolutely obvious. 

 

I can't prove George Washington crises the Trenton by comparing Colonial Law to English Parlimentry law..... no amount of clever parallels can indirectly prove this. However, a primary source by Washington or another witness certainly helps, as well as pointing out this country called the USA exists, and it says so. Be easier to dismiss admittedly if the USA didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current Status as of Friday, December 13th, 2013, is Unproven. However, points for improvement in exposition and effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually don't have cause to critic a development of another users historical method. Don't misconceive my tolerance and willingness to critique and review your ideas with the acceptance of the underlining idea. There are hundreds of similar ideas, historically dubious but we'll constructed, at least well enough constructed for off hand consideration as a alternative possibility.

 

 

As I see its unlikely any real proof will emerge, I have little hope for this theory to win out against other similar theories, much less overthrow the current polyglot synethsis commonly agreed upon without much controversy..... searching for the origins of Christianity has literally been done to death by some exceptional minds throughout history. Same with other major religions.

Edited by Onasander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Proof that one book is based on another, a common source, or a lost third source

 

A speculative point, unless you can name the source, thus not evidence.

 

 

2) Proof that the parallels were designed for presenting satire and historical information

beyond the surface level narration

You're assuming a common purpose linking varying avenues of literary pursuit. Pure conspiracy theory based on common themes from a particular historical period. I could, on that basis, claim that there's a global conspiracy to rule Syria.

 

3) Proof that the books are actually of a common Flavian source (eliminating

the other two possibilities)

Not necessarily, rather that they reflect common perceptions at one period in history.

 

 

 

1) Do you at least agree from the below analysis that the

gospels are based heavily on Josephus

Edited by caldrail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your assuming it's a Either - Or for us. Either Or binaries aren't apparent to us because we don't see it as requiring a narrowness of choice here. Your hardly the first to assume others must see a situation as Either Or. It presupposes we must accept one or another, when we might look at things otherwise very differently. 

 

Forcing us to accept this question is a slight of hand. I assume it's unintentional, but be aware of it in the future. Peer review shouldn't engineered so people reviewing it must accept it only two ways. It's our job to throw anything and everything against your theory (and we will in Time). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It's unfortunately taught as a logical fallacy, which I don't believe in..... I'm more hardwired Neuro-Cognitive in my position on dialectics..... but 9 out of 10 historians are trained to 'detect' approved logical fallacies, and they would squeal with delight, as if they just disproved your theory by that alone. It's best to avoid them unless your debating someone more experienced, most historians are very conservative in their culture of debate and won't budge from the orthodoxy they were taught..... even though it was originally guys like me who made those rules in the first place to avoid the worst excesses of the dumbest debaters.

 

When we see you doing this, we will explain why it's 'wrong'. You neither went to college like half the guys here nor are a experienced debater like me. It's easy to learn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No? Caldrail, which one do you believe: that all those parallels I listed - 40-50 between both works - are there by coincidence or design?

That argument could be applied to all sorts of things to no good purpose. "Intelligent Design" for instance, supposedly the proof of God's existence by virtue of our self professed perfection or adaptability, which in the real world ignores the incredible array of blind alleys that evolution has created over the eons - but then, evolution doesn't need God, does it? Arguably, mankind is a blind alley too rather than divine creation or ultimate progression. We agfter all the last of our species still surviving and as we grow more specialised, our success becomes more temporary. And so on.

 

One of humanity's least well documented abilities is to recognise patterns. It's how we can learn to read or spot animal tracks, or for that matter, tell Fred from Freda. Unfortunately it can also be used to construct fallacies. Von Daniken did that back in the seventies, spotting 'parallels' in texts and mating them to monuments and relics in a half baked idea that we're the result of an alien breeding pattern. His evidence however only sounds plausible because opf the narrative style he uses. Typical of such authors, they infer a mystery and supply " answers" that no-one else has spotted since time immemorial.

 

You can list as many parallels as you like. Until you have some sort of corrobatorive evidence of your assertions beyond a comparison of ancient texts (one of which is unfortunately a revised version of a revised version of a translated version of a censored version of a collection of works by different people - which in itself blows your quaint theory out of the water).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean you think I've listed 40-50 coincidences then?

 

What other choices are there besides coincidence and design? You can check I haven't quoted them in error by verifying at Bible Gateway or Bible Hub. There is also several websites with Josephus' works to check the validity.

 

So which one is it - coincidence/chance/parallelomania - or design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Design on your part, classified as Parallelmania by current historical diction. 

 

You see it as a consequence of your analysis we are left with only a Either Or. This can make sense from certain cognitive perspectives when subjective causality and expected parallels in logic are synchronized..... it's why I'm not calling you a nut case, because I know looking at the brain this is a sane and logical process..... to a point. After a while, your going to have to start processing and answering our assertions.

 

This is something both Philo and Jesus were known for. Rabbi Daniel Boyarin noted Jesus was perhaps the best Polemist of his era, Marin R. Niehoff in her book Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria discusses not just Philo's Hermeunetics, but also a variety of other Jews active in this era. 

 

Parallels are expected by default. The Jews had a decided presence in Alexandria intellectually. How do you expect me to say it's either or when I've spent a week looking over what survives of Arius Didymus? How does he fit in? Wouldn't any number of the Stoic or Aristotelian Pagans living in Alexandria at this time of noted something odd happening between the government and this Jewish sect? 

 

The range of possibilities to reject your assertions are very high. Wouldn't be fair to US or YOU to slam you with them all at once. You got time, pace yourself.... just don't try to force us to answer a certain way. My eye falls on the Alexandrian Intelligencia and its Heumeunetic Methods more than just Philo's conservatism when looking critically at this. Hard to package it as fitting a either or. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The problem with the Parallelmania theory (or design on the part of the interpreter or person making the comparison) is that, in the case of Caesar's Messiah, the parallels are occurring in sequence: (1-5, say = beginning, quarter-way, halfway, three quarter-way, end)

 

1. Good news, sent by father

2. loose and bound, divide 3 against 2, cut down fruit trees

3. Human Passover Lamb

4. Woe saying Jesus who gave up the ghost and was crucified

5. Doubt in their Lord's identity

 

What would you expect a Typologist, who was writing both the gospels and Josephus (or one book based on another), to do differently in order to inform the more logical readers that there is a connection between both works?

 

Now you know that the following example of Typology I actually designed myself:

 

MOVIE A

 

16:00 - A Westerner travels to North Korea and is wearing factor 3 sun cream

33:00 - The Westerner takes off a pair of trousers

62:00 - The Westerner walks past a department store and sees luxuries

73:00 - The Westerner is told by the tour guide about the leaders of the country

84:00 - The Westerner travels back to the US

 

MOVIE B

 

16:00 - A native visits a capital city and sees 3 giant posters of men

33:00 - The native is told by a police officer to change one item of their clothing

62:00 - The native enters a shop but is told nothing is for sale to anyone but they are only there for show, for sake of the foreign media.

73:00 - The native makes a gibe about one of the men in the posters

84:00 - The native is not allowed to return home and is instead taken to a prison camp

 

How can you detect that mine is designed and authored by a common source (me) or that I got Movie A from somewhere else and did my own Movie B? 

 

Understanding this, i.e. Patterns, Probability and Typology is all related to Part 1 of the proof that the Flavians invented Christianity. But in Parts 2 and 3 I can show that it's possible to know that the Flavians actually wrote both the gospels and Wars of the Jews or that I did both Movies A and Movies B (I didn't just do one of them).


Edited by gilius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean you think I've listed 40-50 coincidences then?

 

What other choices are there besides coincidence and design? You can check I haven't quoted them in error by verifying at Bible Gateway or Bible Hub. There is also several websites with Josephus' works to check the validity.

 

So which one is it - coincidence/chance/parallelomania - or design?

 

Fabrication using similar texts. As I've already stated, christians predate the Flavian period. We know this because of the work of christian preachers, because Nero burned a few of them out of spite (and to use as a scapegoat), and because archaeology supports early christianity. The Flavians didn't do anything to promte it. As I stated before, why would they? It makes no historical sense to invent a religion at odds with the native pagan beliefs of the Roman world. Considering how stubbornly traditional Romans were, your conceopt, however illustrated, is not proven.

 

Comparison of two texts is not proof. You need corroboration from elsewhere. As I stated before, limiting your sources is not going to help your case. It invites suspicion and leaves out potentially adverse evidence deliberately.

 

Sorry - the "Von Daniken" approach doesn't work with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your color display you made doesnt make the symmetrical paralell in the texts apparent or intuitive.

 

How do you know they are in the 'same spots'.... did you do a wordcount between the texts, and find the mean for each start and finish?

 

If you did, this would be statistical data.... I would like to see the numbers on the statistical spacing of the words. As in a actual count, of each word..... , how long the sections are (start to finish) , their word counts in between.

 

If you did this, I will look over the data, and test its validity myself in parts.

 

I want to see word counts and percentages match up pretty sharp though, in the same order.

 

If you can do this, I will be impressed. If you can do it with a bar graph display as a overview to the data, even better.

 

Im unable to do it on my own, given I dont know where these parts are.... and besides, its your argument, and your rebuttal.

 

Take all the time you need, no rush. Just, you make a big yet conceivably provable claim (the parallel, not necessary Flavius).... I would like to see this statistical data and put it to the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×