I believe that there likely was a 'Paul', and that 'Saul' was one and the same as Josephus Flavius. If there was a John the Baptist, it would likely be per Ralph Ellis' theories, which also include an historical human that was conveniently transformed by quill into your fictional Jesus of non-existent Nazareth.Do you deny that there was a historical John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, Matthew, Josephus?
Answer this question as to your feckless savior.Again, ignoring today's modern innovations, how does today's world differ from that of the Roman's?
Rick, please, there's no need to be rude to visitors. Joe is new to the site, and we can't make any assumptions about the materials he's read.Who cares? You're clutching at straws.
John the Baptist is attested to by both Josephus and the New Testament. He's also revered by the Mandaeans, who seem to represent an independent lineage going back to the Nasoreans or Essenes. There's a significant discrepancy between the NT and Josephus accounts, but they seem to be referring to the same person.Do you deny that there was a historical John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, Matthew, Josephus?
We believe that in addition to the few passages which are endlessly debated by scholars, Josephus contains many obvious, satirical references to the New Testament. These are not generally recognized as such, because of chronological issues, and because Christian biblical scholars have no sense of humor. But since we're convinced that Josephus knew all about Christianity, it's certainly possible that he did in fact mention "James the brother of Jesus" and he did in fact write the Testimonium Flavianum.Do you believe that Josephus' reference to James, John the Baptist and Pilate are interpolations?
I was assuming that Joe had read "Creating Christ", but perhaps not. Here's some info from my essay on this site (written before V&F came out with more evidence):Jerry was referring to such as Flavia Domatilla, and other Flavians.
…it is odd that so many members of the Flavian family were recorded as having been among Christianity’s first members. Why was a Judaic cult that advocated meekness and poverty so attractive to a family that practiced neither? The tradition connecting early Christianity and the Flavian family is based on solid evidence but has received little comment from scholars.
A Roman origin would also explain why so many members of a Roman imperial family, the Flavians, were recorded as being among the first Christians. The Flavians would have been among the first Christians because, having invented the religion, they were, in fact, the first Christians.
What does their attribution have to do with your conclusion?One thing I'd note is there isn't any direct evidence for the Flavian hypothesis. There are four Gospels and the early church attributed them to M, Mk, L and J. Now there is reason to doubt this, but it's rather interesting almost universal attribution. Only one - Mark - was believed to have had a Roman provenance.
And so while you are free to take the most credulous interpretation from the convenient lack of transparency regarding the claimed Son of God, we believe in taking a more critical approach, that takes into account imperial motivations. Which include that syncretizing all possible prior religions and cults into one state religion is much more efficient for the new age. This is a cultural process that takes centuries to accomplish because of dealing with matters like generational memories.Obviously we are dealing with ancient history where we don't have even close to the sources we'd like.
Says who? The claim is that Flavia Domatilla was exiled to Pontia ... for veering into 'atheistic' ways. A euphemism for things including Judaism. So, again, what brand of Judaism?But it seems likely that Clement and Flavia were killed by the Flavians.
Imagine if the imperial Romans (and their elite Herodian and Maccabean friends) wanted to create a new and 'catholic' (universal) state religion, but they told everyone that the imperial court made it all happen. Doesn't it seem likely that God (aka the collective Caesars) did make it all happen, but it's all packaged in a propagandic white lie?Another thing is that F&V claim that Acts and the Gospels are worthless as history. Yet they keep citing them as evidence for their claims. Now I get their argument - the Gospels and Acts are fictionalized account meant to make a point. But there are things in them that run counter to their thesis - most importantly that they say the Romans crucified Jesus.
Another important point is that Domitian (last of the Flavians) was responsible for this purge. Joe Atwill's analysis is that Domitian was taking the Christian religion in a new direction, and needed to shed the old guard. Or perhaps on a more raw, dynastic level, Clement and Domatilla had a possible claim on the throne, and needed to be eliminated.The claim is that Flavia Domatilla was exiled to Pontia ... for veering into 'atheistic' ways.
What about the Flavian coins with Christian symbols? What about the anchor & fishes in the Catacombs of St. Domatilla? What could possibly be more direct than that?One thing I'd note is there isn't any direct evidence for the Flavian hypothesis.
The Gospels say that the Jewish people demanded that Jesus should die. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of it. It's hard to imagine a more viciously anti-Jewish scenario.But there are things in them that run counter to their thesis - most importantly that they say the Romans crucified Jesus.
That is the impression I get from reading Josephus, he tried his best to keep his fellow Jews from rebelling against Rome, both before and after his capture. and the Zealots were a divisive, contentious, brawling, sacrilegious gang of murderers and robbers of even their own people, who got what they deserved, even though, at the siege of Jerusalem, Titus wanted to spare them and the Temple, which parallels Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem wanting to spare Jesus from the bloodthirsty mob of Jews, who supposedly cried out that his blood was upon them and their children, who would have been adults by the time of the siege of Jerusalem. Pontius Pilate asked "What is truth?", and Josephus gave him his version of the "truth", from a Roman, not a Jewish, perspective. Josephus was certainly not above sarcasm either, as in his story of the black comedic "woe-saying" Jesus son of Ananias/Ananus, who gets his final "woe" from the Romans at the siege of Jerusalem. Whom is kidding whom here?According to Josephus, the zealous Jews brought their fate upon themselves. Titus and Vespasian were depicted as completely blameless.
If you're relying on modern legal standards, the only form of direct evidence allowed in a courtroom is live eyewitness testimony describing personal experience (State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40, via Wikipedia.) So by definition, direct evidence is impossible with respect to any historical event before ~1920 AD.I'd say that's indirect or circumstantial.
Really? If I were a Jew of the 2nd or 3rd century, seeing Romans and Greeks attending Christian church at well-funded Roman-style basilicas, and seeing Christian symbols on Roman coins, what sort of inferences would follow? Especially also knowing that the more zealous, anti-Roman Jews were still meeting the same fate as Jesus.That was a message to Jews that if they followed the Jesus movement the same might happen to them.
And yet, we quickly find 'Christians' filling up the seats at the Roman blood games and serving gayly in the Roman army. I bet you wont tell me these must have been Chrestians.Nonetheless, it was the Romans who executed Jesus. That was a message to Jews that if they followed the Jesus movement the same might happen to them.
A few people have said something similar when they first hear about CM: If the Romans created a religion with a Jewish god, wouldn't that be of benefit to Jewish people, if not in the short run, then the in long? It assured the existence of Judaism after a genocide?"What about the Flavian coins with Christian symbols? What about the anchor & fishes in the Catacombs of St. Domatilla? What could possibly be more direct than that?"
I'd say that's indirect or circumstantial.
"The Gospels say that the Jewish people demanded that Jesus should die. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of it. It's hard to imagine a more viciously anti-Jewish scenario."
Nonetheless, it was the Romans who executed Jesus. That was a message to Jews that if they followed the Jesus movement the same might happen to them.
One could say that this 'Jewish' savior, son of the Jewish god, was a form of cuckolding to help achieve the controlled opposition. But as well, this required that the Romans institutionalize the 'approved' form of (Rabbinic) Judaism going forward, till today. And in doing so, Josephus stated that one of the two 'schools' of the Pharisees was exterminated in the process, the remaining one, presumably compliant in the face of extinction, became our Talmudic Jews of today. For a while these Jews were given an 'ethnarch' that served under authority of the emperor, and then later they sat more informally under the authority and protection of the Catholic papacy, the Jew's new 'Joseph' (the social order detailed in Genesis).Postflavians argue that it's controlled opposition… but that strategy could also backfire in many ways.