Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s in Rome, and has as a lot of surviving writings, never quotes diirectly from any of the four gospels. Interesting heh!

That's just completely false.

On his "On the Resurrection", Justin quotes Mk 12:25 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?" And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh.

and Justin also quotes Mk 2:17 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  And if it is the flesh that is the sinner, then on its account alone did the Saviour come, as He says, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Since, then, the flesh has been proved to be valuable in the sight of God, and glorious above all His works, it would very justly be saved by Him.

and he references Mat 5:44,46 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  Wherefore the Saviour also taught us to love our enemies, since, says He, what thank have ye? So that He has shown us that it is a good work not only to love those that are begotten of Him, but also those that are without.

and Luke 24:32:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;" and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish.

On the "First Apology", Justin Martyr besides making references to Jesus' teachings he also quotes directly from Mat 5:28-29 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire." And, "Whosoever shall many her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.

as well as parts of Mat 5, 6 and Luke 6:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  For what shall I say, too, of the countless multitude of those who have reformed intemperate habits, and learned these things? For Christ called not the just nor the chaste to repentance, but the ungodly, and the licentious, and the unjust; His words being, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner. And of our love to all, He taught thus: "If ye love them that love you, what new thing do ye? for even fornicators do this. But I say unto you, Pray for your enemies, and love them that hate you, and bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you." And that we should communicate to the needy, and do nothing for glory, He said, "Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow turn not away; for if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what new thing do ye? even the publicans do this. Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where robbers break through; but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for it? Lay up treasure, therefore, in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt." And, "Be ye kind and merciful, as your Father also is kind and merciful, and maketh His sun to rise on sinners, and the righteous, and the wicked. Take no thought what ye shall eat, or what ye shall put on: are ye not better than the birds and the beasts? And God feedeth them. Take no thought, therefore, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall put on; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But seek ye the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you. For where his treasure is, there also is the mind of a man." And, "Do not these things to be seen of men; otherwise ye have no reward from your Father which is in heaven."

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2014, 07:43 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2014 08:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(09-06-2014 08:02 AM)John Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 06:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Falsely signed" letters was the norm. (See Harvardx's course on the Pauline letters .. )
https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harv...5UB8SjyQSo
It did not mean then what it does today. "Students" wrote letters with the names of their teachers attached all the time. Letter writing in the ancient world was far different than today. It was just the way things were done then. We have a different view of the practice. You can't judge another time/culture with your values, unless you at least acknowledge you understand the practices, IMO.

Do you have good references for this? I checked the link but there was nothing in the intro page about this. The main reason I ask is because I recall Bart Ehrman trying to debunk this some years ago (if you're saying what I think you're saying):

Bart Ehrman in Forged Wrote:Some scholars have argued, strenuously, but without much evidence, that it was a common and accepted practice in schools of philosophy to write a philosophical treatise and sign your master’s name to it (Plato, Pythagoras, etc.), rather than your own, and that no one looked askance at this practice. As we will see in Chapter 4, there is little evidence indeed that this happened. Ask a modern-day scholar who claims that in antiquity this was a widespread practice to cite an ancient source for it. In almost every instance, you will find a tongue-tied scholar.

The relevant, somewhat lengthy part from Chapter 4:

Bart Ehrman in Forged Wrote:So other scholars have tried to find grounds for legitimizing pseudepigraphal writings in the pagan tradition, where these authors have their roots. Such scholars sometimes claim that it was common for disciples of a philosopher to write treatises and not sign their own name, but the name of their teacher. This, it is alleged, was done as an act of humility, that authors felt that their ideas were not actually theirs, but had been given to them by the leader of their philosophical school. So, to give credit where credit was due, they attached their master’s name to their own writings.

New Testament scholars often claim that this can explain why someone claimed to be Paul when writing Colossians, Ephesians, or the pastoral letters. In one of the standard commentaries on Colossians, for example, we read the following: “Pseudonymous documents, especially letters with philosophical content, were set in circulation because disciples of a great man intended to express, by imitation, their adoration of their revered master and to secure or to promote his influence upon a later generation under changed circumstances.” A more recent commentator on Colossians and Ephesians states something similar: “Viewing Colossians (or Ephesians) as deutero-Pauline should not be mistakenly understood as meaning that these documents are simply examples of forgery. For example, to write in the name of a philosopher who was one’s patron could be seen as a sign of honor bestowed upon that person.”

I should point out that, as happens so often, neither of these commentators actually provides any evidence that this was a common practice in philosophical schools. They state it as a fact. And why do they think it’s a fact? For most New Testament scholars it is thought to be a fact because, well, so many New Testament scholars have said so! But ask someone who makes this claim what her ancient source of information is or what ancient philosopher actually states that this was a common practice. More often than not you’ll be met with a blank stare.

The scholars who do mention ancient evidence for this alleged practice typically point to two major sources. But one of the two says no such thing. This is the third-century Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, who is alleged to have said that in the school of the ancient philosopher Pythagoras (who lived eight hundred years earlier) it was a common practice for disciples to write books and sign their master’s name to them. This statement by Porphyry is a little hard to track down, because it is not in his surviving Greek writings; it is only in an Arabic translation of one of his works from the thirteenth century.

I doubt if any of the New Testament scholars who refer to this statement of Porphyry’s has actually read it, since it is, after all, in Arabic, and most New Testament scholars don’t read Arabic. I don’t either. But I have a colleague who does, Carl Ernst, an expert in medieval Islam. I asked Professor Ernst to translate the passage for me. As it turns out, Porphyry doesn’t say anything about followers of Pythagoras writing books and then signing his name to them. Instead, he says that Pythagoras himself wrote eighty books, two hundred books were written by his followers, and twelve books were “forged” in the name of Pythagoras. The twelve books are condemned for using Pythagoras’s name when he didn’t write them. The forgers are called “shameless people” who “fabricated” “false books.” The two hundred books are not said to have been written by Pythagoras’s followers in his name; they were simply books written by Pythagoras’s followers.

This, then, is one of the two ancient references sometimes cited by scholars to indicate that the practice of writing in a master’s name was “common.” I should point out that, in Porphyry’s other writings as well as in this passage, he shows a keen interest in knowing which books are authentic and which are forged, and he condemns the forgeries, including the Old Testament book of Daniel, which he thinks could not have been written by an Israelite in the sixth century BCE.

The other reference to a tradition in the philosophical schools does say what scholars have said it says. This one is in the writings of Iamblichus, another Neoplatonic philosopher from about the same time as Porphyry. In his account of Pythagoras’s life, Iamblichus says the following: “This also is a beautiful circumstance, that they [i.e., Pythagoras’s followers] referred everything to Pythagoras, and called it by his name, and that they did not ascribe to themselves the glory of their own inventions, except very rarely. For there are very few whose works are acknowledged to be their own.”

1. For this tradition to have made an impact on such a wide array of early Christian authors, it would have had to be widely known. But it wasn’t. The tradition is not mentioned by a single author from the time of Pythagoras (sixth century BCE) to the time of Iamblichus (third to fourth century CE). As a result, there is nothing to suggest this view was widely known. Quite the contrary, no one else seems to have known it for eight hundred years.

2. More specifically, Iamblichus was living two hundred years after the writings of 1 and 2 Peter and the Deutero-Paulines. There is no reference to this tradition existing in the time of the New Testament writings. It could scarcely have been seen as a widely accepted practice at the time.

3. Iamblichus refers to what happened only within one of the many philosophical schools. He makes no claims about a wider tradition in philosophical schools outside of Pythagorean circles.

4. As recent scholars of Pythagoreanism have pointed out, there is reason to think that what Iamblichus says in fact is not even true of the Pythagorean school:

a. First, he was writing eight hundred years after Pythagoras and would have had no way of knowing that what he was saying is true. He may well simply have thought this is how it worked.

b. None of the other philosophers or historians who talk about Pythagoras and his school prior to Iamblichus says any such thing about pseudonymous works written in his name.

c. Iamblichus’s comment is completely casual and off the cuff.

d. To cap it all off, when Iamblichus’s statement can be checked, it appears to be wrong. The vast majority of the writings of the Pythagorean school were not done in the name of Pythagoras. His followers wrote in their own names.

As a result, the brief and casual comment by Iamblichus (who, it must be remembered, lived more than two hundred years after Paul and Peter) cannot at all be taken as evidence of what happened in the days of Pythagoras and his students (six hundred years before Paul and Peter), let alone what happened commonly in the philosophical schools, let alone what probably happened in early Christianity.

For these reasons, New Testament scholars need to revise their views about philosophical schools and their impact on the forgery practices of early Christians. There is almost nothing to suggest that there was a tradition in these schools to practice pseudepigraphy as an act of humility.

Yes I do. See the course. We're talking about letter writing here. Not "philosophical treatises".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Show me the evidence that the Flavians created Christianity.

What was that, there is none?

Yeah I know.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
10-06-2014, 03:31 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(09-06-2014 07:36 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s in Rome, and has as a lot of surviving writings, never quotes diirectly from any of the four gospels. Interesting heh!

That's just completely false.

On his "On the Resurrection", Justin quotes Mk 12:25 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?" And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh.

and Justin also quotes Mk 2:17 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  And if it is the flesh that is the sinner, then on its account alone did the Saviour come, as He says, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Since, then, the flesh has been proved to be valuable in the sight of God, and glorious above all His works, it would very justly be saved by Him.

and he references Mat 5:44,46 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  Wherefore the Saviour also taught us to love our enemies, since, says He, what thank have ye? So that He has shown us that it is a good work not only to love those that are begotten of Him, but also those that are without.

and Luke 24:32:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;" and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish.

On the "First Apology", Justin Martyr besides making references to Jesus' teachings he also quotes directly from Mat 5:28-29 when he says:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire." And, "Whosoever shall many her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.

as well as parts of Mat 5, 6 and Luke 6:
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Justin Martyr Wrote:  For what shall I say, too, of the countless multitude of those who have reformed intemperate habits, and learned these things? For Christ called not the just nor the chaste to repentance, but the ungodly, and the licentious, and the unjust; His words being, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner. And of our love to all, He taught thus: "If ye love them that love you, what new thing do ye? for even fornicators do this. But I say unto you, Pray for your enemies, and love them that hate you, and bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you." And that we should communicate to the needy, and do nothing for glory, He said, "Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow turn not away; for if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what new thing do ye? even the publicans do this. Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where robbers break through; but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for it? Lay up treasure, therefore, in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt." And, "Be ye kind and merciful, as your Father also is kind and merciful, and maketh His sun to rise on sinners, and the righteous, and the wicked. Take no thought what ye shall eat, or what ye shall put on: are ye not better than the birds and the beasts? And God feedeth them. Take no thought, therefore, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall put on; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But seek ye the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you. For where his treasure is, there also is the mind of a man." And, "Do not these things to be seen of men; otherwise ye have no reward from your Father which is in heaven."

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Ok...here are the (specific) quotes you mention, as referenced from the King James Bible.

Mark 12:25
King James Version (KJV)
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Mark 2:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 5:44-46
King James Version (KJV)
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Luke 24:32
King James Version (KJV)
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Matthew 5:28-29
King James Version (KJV)
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

There are some similarities, yet some of the others show little similarity.

Yet you miss my point.

Justin never mentions any specific gospels. He knew of no such thing as Matthew, Mark Luke or John. If he did he would've said so. Please digest the following.

In the second century, written and oral traditions ran side by side, distorting one another. There were hundreds of “Gospels” - a mass of inconsistent writings. Books were hand-written and manuscripts replicated one at a time, so thousands of copiers were able to alter, add to, or omit whatever they wanted; remarks written in margins by one transcriber were transferred into the next text, and were then indistinguishable from the original. Myth became overlaid with myth. In the second and third centuries there was no one dominant church to control the proliferation of these writings, just hundreds of different communities scattered throughout the empire, all with their own beliefs, written and oral, about Jesus.

So it's not surprising that one can find the occasional quote in Justin that resembles stuff that ended up in the canonical gospels, as you have demonstrated.

You are however, drawing an impossibly long bow if you claim that Justin was familiar with the canonical gospels as we now know them. He obviously knew nothing about the name or identity or legitimacy of anyone who may have written whatever material he was drawing from.

There is a whole lot of stuff he wrote about our Jeebus that he got from apocryphal stories, something that your source conveniently neglects to mention.

So please do go on. I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can demonstrate that Justin was familiar with, and therefore quoted from, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. I would love to "get" any idea you can share that is true.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 03:37 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(09-06-2014 08:10 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Show me the evidence that the Flavians created Christianity.

What was that, there is none?

Yeah I know.

Show me the evidence you've considered the arguments seriously, and then I'll take some notice of you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 05:57 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(10-06-2014 03:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 08:10 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Show me the evidence that the Flavians created Christianity.

What was that, there is none?

Yeah I know.

Show me the evidence you've considered the arguments seriously, and then I'll take some notice of you.

Mark, seriously mate. You sound like a Christian.

What can I tell you? I have been reading Roman history since the age of 16. I am now 50. I particularly enjoy Aemianus and Julian. Pliny was cool. Loved Dio.

Anyway. The burden of proof lays at your feet. I already sent Atwill packing when he came to us at Landover when I was administrator.

He has nothing. Personally, proving that Josephus wrote the NT would be awesome. But he does not appear to have done so.

If you are out to disprove the NT, you are wasting your life with Atwill. He is a crack pot trying to sell BS. I rate him up there with Ken Ham.

Life is short Mark. Use your time wisely.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
10-06-2014, 07:07 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(09-06-2014 08:02 AM)John Wrote:  Do you have good references for this?
(09-06-2014 07:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes I do.

Then please provide them.

(09-06-2014 07:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  See the course.

I did. 2 hours in and nothing relevant has come up.

(09-06-2014 07:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We're talking about letter writing here. Not "philosophical treatises".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in response to this:

(08-06-2014 05:42 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  We find falsely signed letters throughout the bible; rarely in the writings of antiquity are the true identities of so many authors so hidden from the reader.

... you wrote:

(08-06-2014 06:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Falsely signed" letters was the norm. (See Harvardx's course on the Pauline letters .. )

It did not mean then what it does today. "Students" wrote letters with the names of their teachers attached all the time. Letter writing in the ancient world was far different than today. It was just the way things were done then. We have a different view of the practice. You can't judge another time/culture with your values, unless you at least acknowledge you understand the practices, IMO.

On face value your wording of "students" who wrote letters with the names of their teachers attached seems to be starkly reminiscent of what the quotes I provided seek to debunk. Sure, Ehrman speaks of treatises, which seems to be the appropriate term for what students might have written with the names of their teachers attached, not letters, a form of correspondence. I don't recall anyone claiming that students would have corresponded in the name of their teachers. In fact, the word 'letter' seems to be a complete misnomer in this student-teacher context, to my knowledge at least.

When Mark said that the NT has in abundance "falsely signed" letters, I take it that he means that those letters purport to be someone's views, when in reality they're not, and the means to achieve this is by false introduction in the prescript (e.g. in the pastoral epistles). This can rightly be called deception, irregardless of the misattributer's noble intents or the lack of it. To the best of my knowledge this practice is and has been condemned throughout history. The main reason why Ehrman wrote Forged was to show it, and to show that the NT (and OT) pseudepigrapha are representative of this condemned practice, and to my mind he succeeded. Now, I haven't come across a good case against this, albeit I haven't exactly been looking for one, but I'd be more than happy to receive new information and evolve my understanding of the matter.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
For those wishing to judge Atwill’s evidence themselves without having to rely on Richard Carrier’s expert opinion from the perspective of a Biblical scholar (and without needing to judge Atwill personally), start with this:
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/signs.htm
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/pics/signs.jpg
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/pics/model.jpg

The patterns between both books are self-evident; all you need is common sense to realise that.
Comparing the short segments in the above link, all these words/phrases are repeating: Jesus, Jerusalem, Woe x 8, temple/holy house and the signs that preceded its destruction, “false prophets”, famines, quaking, clothes/garments, east, west, clouds, “four winds”, thieves, robbers. You can’t have all those matching elements clustered together in relatively short spaces occur coincidentally/circumstantially.

Same here with the first 2 parallels:
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/pics...allels.jpg

Once you start to find parallels in sequence, indicating design, then there is a bias that other parallels with only conceptual matches are likely to be part of the parallel system that was put there on purpose. This is how the Moses-Jesus parallels were discovered, but the “passing through water” one wasn’t obvious at first. And the NT/Josephus parallels are even part of an itinerary framework of Jesus’ ministry and Titus’ campaign with matching locations, which adds another layer to the design:
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/location.htm

Domitian was even responsible for complex 3-way typologies, so he’s obviously trying to go “one better” than his brother:
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/sevenseals.htm

Once you realise the sophistication of the parallel system and the interpretable satire then it can be proven that both books were authored by the same team, and there are at least 5 ways of reaching that conclusion. The gospel writers didn’t just borrow from Josephus otherwise they would not have included all the satire directed towards Jesus, the Jews and the Christians (the point of designing most parallels). Josephus didn’t just borrow from the New Testament authors because he would have had to invent all the Maccabean names who appear historically on coins based on the names of Jesus and his disciples:

“If you consult the Dictionary of Scripture Proper Names in Web-
ster’s Unabridged, you will find hundreds of Hebrew first names.
Notably, in both Josephus and the New Testament the same few Jew-
ish names proliferate. In War of the Jews there are nine Eleazars,
three Jacobs (Jameses), six Jesuses, five Matthiases (Matthew), one
Mary, four Mariammes, eight Johns, seven Josephs, ten Judases, and
thirteen Simons. In the New Testament the same pattern occurs:
there are seven Marys, nine Simons, two Johns, two Josephs, four
Judases, two Lazaruses (Eleazar), two Matthiases (Matthews), two
Jameses, and, at the minimum, three Jesuses. From the standpoint
of probability, it is unlikely that this set of names would even over-
lap in two works that have so few named characters, let alone with
this many duplications.”

“The answer lies in the fact that this same set of names was
known to have been used by a third group, the Maccabees, the fam-
ily that ruled Israel during the first and second centuries B.C.E.,
until they were replaced by the Romans with Herod.”

When you analyse the typology between the Jesus and Moses, all you get is this:
•8+ parallels with matching verbatim, names, locations and concepts, in sequence
•Parallels that prefigure a person/character based on a type

When you analyse the typology between Jesus and Titus, amazingly you get parallels with the following attributes/make-up:
•50+ parallels with matching verbatim, names, locations and concepts, in sequence
•Parallels that prefigure a person/character based on a type
•Additional information to the surface narration interpretable from most parallels
•Anti-semitism and dark comedy (satire) interpretable from most parallels
•Parallels with deliberate puzzle elements
•Prophetic phrases in future tense that are paralleled by matches specifically in present tense
•Parallels that occur not only in sequence, but in an itinerary framework
•Consistent patterns with corruptions of names and locations in parallels
•Pseudonyms identified from parallels that make sense when applied to other parts of the book(s)
•Parallels that can be combined intertextually/interactively to produce further parallels and information
•Parallels with dates and mathematical patterns
•Parallels with blunders
•Parallels with interpretable confessions
•Complex 3-way parallels and typologies

Moses-Jesus was designed by NT authors who did not tamper with the OT (parallels too unsophisticated).
Jesus-Titus was designed by the authors of Josephus AND NT since they are way too sophisticated to be constructed single-sided.

Atwill’s new book Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah shows that Shakespeare discovered the same patterns as Joe several hundred years prior and began the first play, Titus Andronicus, based on the puzzle of Decius Mundus:
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/puzzle.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(10-06-2014 03:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yet you miss my point.

Justin never mentions any specific gospels. He knew of no such thing as Matthew, Mark Luke or John...

So it's not surprising that one can find the occasional quote in Justin that resembles stuff that ended up in the canonical gospels, as you have demonstrated.

No, you miss my point. Mark seriously virtually every time Justin Martyr quotes Jeebus and he says he's quoting Jeebus he is quoting from one of the big four. I am beginning to see that you haven't read Justin Martyr and are just repeating empty talking points. I really could add more instances were Justin quotes Luke, John, Mark and Matthew.

(10-06-2014 03:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So please do go on. I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can demonstrate that Justin was familiar with, and therefore quoted from, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. I would love to "get" any idea you can share that is true.
I doubt you are happy to be proven wrong. I didnt say that Justin was familiar with the modern forms of Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. That's just ridiculous.
I never said that. I demonstrated that he only quotes from the four gospels. Which you assured us he never did. You and I know very well that the headings of "according to Luke" or "according to John" are not in the earliest manuscripts. So saying that he didnt classify them as John's or Luke's gospel is an easy way out of being shown to be incorrect.

(10-06-2014 03:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  There is a whole lot of stuff he wrote about our Jeebus that he got from apocryphal stories, something that your source conveniently neglects to mention.

Proof please? I'd love to see one Justin Martyr quote of Jeebus from a gospel outside the big four.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 08:13 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(09-06-2014 08:10 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Show me the evidence that the Flavians created Christianity.

What was that, there is none?

Yeah I know.

That is more or less where I settled on it.

I see the possibilities. To Marks credit he has proven it plausible to me, but there just isn't any compelling evidence. Coincidences in the time line and the writing of Josephus with the NT sure, but not anything I can really rest on. I'll keep following this thread though. We'll see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: