I'd be willing to argue that the evidence for CM is a lot more complete, and allows us to tell a story with tighter constraints. We have more or less contemporary documents from several points of view, and the very strong, dense and sequential parallels in the 'Flavian Signature', that point to a consistent picture.We should just stop all this then, including the same speculations with CM.
Yes, maybe a color code would be a convenient way to indicate these sorts of things. I'm sorry if I'm seeming overly critical.Perhaps we need to use a color code to indicate 'Provisional' from 'Definitive and Unassailable' and such?
More here (it even has a timeline): http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12719.html[Genesis 47:11] mentions Ramesses, who ruled 1279~1213 bce, and the "long period" of their stay in Egypt was his 66-year reign — the longest in the New Kingdom. Then, a new pharaoh came to power (i.e., Merneptah), who "did not know Joseph", and who changed the terms, oppressing the people to the point of revolt. Next we hear of the brutal conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua, which would have actually been Merneptah's campaign against the Sea Peoples coalition, leaving the destruction noted by Deborah.
This is only true from the standpoint that the CM can be cleanly placed in its own little 'box'. The 18th and 19th Dynasties, plus all the supporting prior documents (referenced by the Sabbahs) that feed into the cultural stream provides a massive amount of 'typology', including archaeological evidence. There is archaelogical evidence for the Christian era, but it points to such things as the Flaviod Chrestians and militant Ebionites, which there seems to be no interest in pursuing the consequences and implications of, perhaps indicating that the little box is not big enough?I'd be willing to argue that the evidence for CM is a lot more complete, and allows us to tell a story with tighter constraints. We have more or less contemporary documents from several points of view, and the very strong, dense and sequential parallels in the 'Flavian Signature', that point to a consistent picture.
True there's archaeological typology, but it seems to be at a high 'storyboard' sort of level. That is, we have a picture of walls of water being separated by a serpent, but no vivd narrative of a people passing between the walls, or of Pharaoh's army drowned after the water fell back. (That is, unless something has gone un-translated.) It seems to be more of an image of the afterlife.The 18th and 19th Dynasties, plus all the supporting prior documents (referenced by the Sabbahs) that feed into the cultural stream provides a massive amount of 'typology', including archaeological evidence.
I can't speak for Joe, but I don't mean to indicate any lack of interest. I just don't understand the big implications you're seeing.There is archaelogical evidence for the Christian era, but it points to such things as the Flaviod Chrestians and militant Ebionites, which there seems to be no interest in pursuing the consequences and implications of, perhaps indicating that the little box is not big enough?
Using your criteria, then CM is invalidated because there is no connectable historical imagery of anyone's apotheosis. The closest that comes to Titus is his father's deathbed joke, but not Titus. Neither Titus or Eliezar ascend to Heaven, as does Jesus.True there's archaeological typology, but it seems to be at a high 'storyboard' sort of level. That is, we have a picture of walls of water being separated by a serpent, but no vivd narrative of a people passing between the walls, or of Pharaoh's army drowned after the water fell back. (That is, unless something has gone un-translated.) It seems to be more of an image of the afterlife.
I agree that the image itself is all that's necessary to demonstrate a cultural or ideological link, maybe it's unrealistic of me to want more than that.
It's the difference between two general schools of thought, between the wholistic Maximalists, like me, and the Minimalists.I just don't understand the big implications you're seeing.
What I mean is, there's the entire narrative of Titus in Josephus, and the narrative of Jesus in the NT, that match in so many vivid ways. In place of an apotheosis, there's the strange 'three crucified, one survives' story, which Joe interprets as part of the 'root and branch' scheme.Using your criteria, then CM is invalidated because there is no connectable historical imagery of anyone's apotheosis.
I would be a 'maximalist', but in the CM context, we already have Julius and Augustus as precursors to Jesus, Mark Antony and Marcus Agrippa as precursors to Mark the evangelist, and Domitian, Trajan and Constantine (and most all emperors in between) as followup. All these seem to be part of the interconnected plan.The Maximalist approach says BS, these events are all connected as part of keeping the human sheep going along with the shepherds' hidden agenda.
To what?I would be a 'maximalist', but in the CM context, we already have Julius and Augustus as precursors to Jesus, Mark Antony and Marcus Agrippa as precursors to Mark the evangelist, and Domitian, Trajan and Constantine (and most all emperors in between) as followup. All these seem to be part of the interconnected plan.
"One survives" is not typology of apotheosis, arguably the most important aspect of Xianity.What I mean is, there's the entire narrative of Titus in Josephus, and the narrative of Jesus in the NT, that match in so many vivid ways. In place of an apotheosis, there's the strange 'three crucified, one survives' story, which Joe interprets as part of the 'root and branch' scheme.
But obviously, not every reader is convinced by CM either.
Joe's view in CM is that the Gospels from the Flavian court were targeted largely at the Jews, which would include the Zealots of Palestine as well as Hellenistic Jews throughout the Mediterranean. You can also make the case that this was only an opportunistic gambit within a larger enterprise to create a religion that would unify the entire Roman Empire, which is what eventually came to pass during Constantine's time and after.To what?
True, and it's an interesting fact that the Resurrection seems to be missing from the Flavian system. Perhaps this represents an intention to leave the Julian Easter typology in place?"One survives" is not typology of apotheosis, the most important aspect of Xianity.
My concern is about the idea of a series of Janus-faced pharaohs who presented themselves as Yahwist monotheists in Palestine, simultaneously with their presence in Egypt as Amunist polytheists. It might be true, but I don't see that the various typological evidence is strong enough to demonstrate it.I'm not sure why this is such an issue as: 'What I mean is, there's the entire narrative of Moses et al in the OT, that match in so many vivid ways.'
I don't know, but I think that if Dick Cheney went on live television to swear on a stack of Bibles that he personally piloted the reverse-engineered at Area 51 cold-fusion-powered spacecraft that cloaked itself into the shape of the commercial airliners that pre-planted the nano-thermite that took down tower 7, the first question most Americans would want answered would be, "so what's the latest news on Kim K and Kanye?" Consequently, I don't think I could be considered a minimalist.The Minimalist approach is that matters like 9/11 (or whatever other event floats your boat), once solved and true justice rendered, will restore harmony to the sheepish Order. The Maximalist approach says BS, these events are all connected as part of keeping the human sheep going along with the shepherds' hidden agenda.
If I were to argue that various individuals within the elite might have different intentions, would that be a minimalist or maximalist position? Anyhow, it seems possible that Vespasian and Titus might have had a narrow view of the purpose of their Gospel innovation, while (for example) Augustus and Constantine might have had the broader view in mind for their roles in promoting Christianity.Joe's assertion (or Jerry's take on Joe's position) of the sole intent (Jewish pacification) of the Flavian intertwined gospels gets to the heart of my question, and in my opinion the assertion fails, not that militant Jewish pacification wasn't a key part of the plan.
That sounds dangerously close to advocating Christianity as having a stabilizing effect on society!To be fair, pacification makes sense to the extent that it might sway various Jews prone to becoming radicalized. Deja vu?
There were two trumpets in Tut's tomb, one silver and one copper.Lastly, the Sabbahs mention the silver trumpets which God order Moses to have made. These are used by Joshua's men to help bring down the walls of Jericho. In Tut's tomb were found four silver military trumpets.