Caesar's Messiah proven - the Flavians invented Christianity!

[caldrail]

Statistics won't prove it either. How many times does this need to be emphasised? Gilius needs an independent source of evidence before his comparison will be taken seriously.

[Onasander]

Statistics won't, look my post over, you'll see I never claimed it would prove the Flavian Hypothesis. However, it would induce a high degree of doubt, and need for future analysis.

 

I'm open to the possibility, because I'm hitting this via method based on scientific norms, not faith nor abhorance. 

 

Remember Caldrail, your not the Christian here, I am. I have much more to 'loose'.... but History is History, he is making assertions, we should hear this out, and correct his methods where necessary. I'm not going to take history on Fideism alone. In theory, he might be able to impress us with good data.... might bring in a new era of historic study for all I know..... can't happen if he doesn't show us the goods. He has time..... lots of it. I doubt he can do it though, his claims are admittedly unreasonable and seemingly delusional.

[gilius]

I put all the Luke references on the left hand side; all the Wars of the Jews references on the right-hand side, so that you can see that all parallels are occuring in sequence and roughly in the "same spots". Where I've linked parallels to other books is simply for knowledge/customs of the times or a reminder about a particular attribute of Jesus that applies to the parallel in question, hence those linked references are not actually part of the parallels, and could all be placed in a separate "knowledge" chart. However, just to make it simple, I placed them directly below the Lukes and Wars of the Jews for those who haven't read the entire books. You see, the way typology works is that you are meant to read one book, note down certain things in your mind, and then read the 2nd book and realise that there is a connection together with the satire.

 

For example, sombody with good memory who reads Luke knows that Jesus was sent by his father to preach the good news. When that same reader moves onto the Wars of the Jews, he will read about Titus with the same characteristics and instantly recognise Jesus as being the achetype. The next scene is when Jesus goes fishing, so when the reader is at the same place in Wars of the Jews he knows that the Romans fish for men, and will notice the satire, etc. It's all really quite simple and straightforward. By the time they get to the end, Jesus is mistaken for Titus (the Lord Christians actually workship but without knowing it), but Part 1 of my proof alone doesn't show that because I haven't yet listed all the satire nor the conundrums, nor Titus' complete pre-configuration including the scores of prophecies that Jesus predicts and Titus fulfills.

Edited December 19, 2013 by gilius

[caldrail]

 

Remember Caldrail, your not the Christian here, I am. I have much more
to 'loose'.... but History is History, he is making assertions, we
should hear this out, and correct his methods where necessary. I'm not
going to take history on Fideism alone. In theory, he might be able to
impress us with good data.... might bring in a new era of historic study
for all I know..... can't happen if he doesn't show us the goods. He
has time..... lots of it. I doubt he can do it though, his claims are
admittedly unreasonable and seemingly delusional.

 

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with this, nor should yours, given that this is a history forum and not a site for religiois conformance. Gilius has derived a concept from comparing texts which is tenuous and dependent on limited scope, not to mention modern translation and historical censorship.

 

There really isn't any convincing reason to believe his conspiracy theory because it has limited credibility, no historical context, nor does it make sense. If the Flavians invented christiabnity, why? Why didn't they promote it as Constantine did? Why isn't there flavian era christian temples in the Roman world? Why aren't pagans moaning about the change of religious policies? Why isn't there any strife in Roman streets as there was in the late empire? Why isn't there any flavian era grafitti or inscriptions that illustrate the new policy? There just isn't any realistic motivation for believing that the Flavians invented christianity.

[Melvadius]

Of more moment you need to provide evidence of which language there is a supposed correlation.  If it is in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts then there may be cause to consider there is a direct correlation between the two. If it is only in a particular set of English translations (but not all) then the only proof  it provides is that the translators used the same alternative word order (in translation of ancient texts there are usually at least two or three possibilities) or more seriously the choices when considered against alternative meanings could show actual evidence of manipulation of the translations to make a more precise cross reference between both texts. 

 

Even if you ignore the abundant literary evidence for Christianity pre-dating the Flavians IF you are claiming this as scientific evidence you need to provide full information on precisely which texts you are comparing (i.e. date of publication, edition, translator and publisher) otherwise it really is no better than any other hare brained Von Daniken type theory which at base is using manufactured evidence.

[gilius]

You can compare all the English translations of the bible at Biblegateway or Biblehub. The information content is the same regardless: experts at Greek to English translations mostly use the same Verbatim/near-verbatim words for each of their translations, but may have a slightly different grammar connecting them, hence the words, names, locations are the same (or mean the same thing) and all the chapters make perfect logical sense when read in combination with Wars of the Jews (translated by Whiston I think in the 19th century). For example, the Greek word for Good News is ("euaggelion"). I could probably get you the original Greek characters to confirm visually, since Josephus and NT are online in Greek as well. Like most uniqe words/phrases, there's few ways of accurately translating them, leaving no room for error. More parallels can be spotted in the original Greek (not less). In other words, faulty Greek translations could not be responsible for 80+ parallels/satire existing between NT and Josephus because 2 books with independent translations are being compared for their matching parallels and satire within the same contexts, so we are not laughing at bad English grammar derived from lousy Greek translations.

 

I'm not presenting this for peer review (it's not my discovery), so if anyone else would like to gather up the technical information regarding the translations they are welcome to: this information is available online like everything else.

Edited December 19, 2013 by gilius

[Artimi]

After reading this thread and the other thread about this topic, some things come to mind.

 

Gilius is saying this theory is correct because ???? - someone on another site has proved it and my(Gilius's)posts prove it.

 

Others are asking for more detailed information on how the conclusion was arrived at, specific information. Gilius says it is all out there if you look, but I have proven my point (at least to his satisfaction) and am right and I don't have to provide the information you request.

 

No meeting any minds anywhere. And the circle keeps spinning madly.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Artimi

[Onasander]

I'm not presenting this for peer review (it's not my discovery), so if anyone else would like to gather up the technical information regarding the translations they are welcome to: this information is available online like everything else.

 

 

If this is the case, why do you repeatedly bring this up?  I only offer toleration to the extent you grow your idea into a theory, one that can be subjected to historical methods. If your not willing to try the history angle, then what on earth are you doing here? This is a history website?

 

If you ever do produce something resembling data, please return and offer it up..... I (we) welcome a challenge to the current status quo..... but this is still a den of historians, under a kind of Republic of Science...... we all have ideas, but allow them to be inspected and criticised by others, and we try to have the humility to accept someone else's critique when they present good ideas and a competent critic.

 

Your ideas are either purely accepted on a faith basis, which means they are not something easily examined using a fact based method that less biased third parties can research, or your now just intentionally withdrawing any attempt to present a recognizable thesis with supporting data for us to examine. You telling us to do the heavy lifting is absurd, we literally can't find the evidence.

 

If you don't do something plausible soon to discredit this latter assumption of mine, that your being specifically nebulous and are intentionally making asinine assertions minus ANY supporting evidence, even the weakest kind, I'm going to petition the moderators to label you as a troll.

 

We will not do the heavy lifting to build your theory, you have to do that. If you want to pursue a course of action that makes you into a historian by learning historic methods, say so now. If not bub-bye. I can tolerate a idiot trying to climb out of ignorance, but not one trying to pull everyone down with them. The first civilizes the feral, the latter banalize the capable.

[gilius]

Its as clear as mud without needing to go into such unnecessary detail like I am writing a book. I am not here at this forum, where I can't even use html/tables or external links, to meticulously document the theory, but am here to prove it with minimal effort.

 

I'm waiting for you guys to confirm if you agree with part 1 before I continue:

1) You agree one book is based on another or lost 3rd source or common source, i.e. by design?

2) you think the gospel writers happened to write the same stuff in the same order without a connection, i.e. by chance? So if I open another book I could easily find the same thing by coincidence: good news, sent by father, human Passover lamb, woe saying jesus, signs before temple destructions, four winds, bridegroom and bride, etc.

3) I have not gone through Luke and Josephus fairly, simply quoting the similarities in order, but am somehow fabricating the data?

[caldrail]

1 - If one book is based upon the other, then you're still speculating about why. So no, I don't agree. And I;m not convinced the books are closely related as you insist. There's bound to be some similaruty given the nature of historical events and those who witnessed them. A future historian might draw similar conclusions from comparing current newspaper stories - there's no significance other than the story they relate.

 

2 - If the gospel writers are recording oral information derived from eye witnesses, then yes, they will agree. That's not conspiracy or invention, it's simply recording what people said.

 

3 - We're not accusuing you of fabrication - Please don't tempt us - We're pointing out repeatedly that you haven't done anything more than compare texts from a limited sample. If you watch the evening news, you'll likely see politicians being given a hard time for doing the same thing. That has failed to convince anyone. If you believe the Flavians 'invented' christianity, which has little if any support here, then you need to find proof that supports your conclusion other than another comparison of texts. The simple fact is you're going to struggle to find any, but I think you already know that, which is why you ignore the obvious and attempt to limit your sampling - which any statistician will tell you leads to inaccuracy.

[Maladict]

 When that same reader moves onto the Wars of the Jews, he will read about Titus with the same characteristics and instantly recognise Jesus as being the achetype. .

 

I think you've found the clue yourself here. Superficial parallels like these can (though not necessarily) be purposely based on an earlier archetype. But the thing that's borrowed is just the stylistic or literary device, not the content. The parallel of mistaken identity you mentioned somewhere may appear in both works, but this device features in countless other works and goes back all the way to Homer. There's nothing more to it unless you have other evidence.

When I read the Aeneid I find lots of things similar to Homer's works. Were they put there by design? Yes. Did Virgil invent the Homeric epics? No.

 

This is of course excluding the possibility that both events actually happened the way they were described and there's no link whatsoever.

[gilius]

Caldrail,

1. Yes, I'm trying to show that one book is based on another, but I haven't got to the "why" part yet, other than concluding that it was the Flavians who authored the books, invented Christianity. So you believe the similarities are there simply by chance? The comparisons do not appear too unique by your judgement?

2. I agree that oral histories could explain why the gospels share similarities with each other, but it doesn't explain why they share such unique similarities with Josephus' Wars of the Jews, since this is a different kind of book.

3. So 40 parallels is only a limited sample? There's a lot more, but I haven't bothered including them because I thought 40 would be more than enough to demonstrate this, and pretty much every chapter of the synoptics contains a parallel matching Wars of the Jews (in sequence). What more would you want? There's enough proof here to show that one book is based on another, but you don't appear to be seeing the unique patterns.

 

Maladict,

Sound promising, so you agree that Typology is at work here, which explains all the parallels, akin to the similar examples of typological works that you provide? No, virgil did not invent the Homeric epics. Likewise, Typology is also at work between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but that doesn't mean the Flavians invented both the new and the old. Again, I can prove this in 3 steps/stages with more evidence to come of a Flavian invention, but we are still at phase 1 because nobody can see the patterns between the gospels and Wars of the Jews here--except perhaps Maladict? That's stopping me from progressing. So just to recap: you agree Jesus is a "type" for Titus, hence sent by father to preach good news proving the parallels are there by typological design?

Edited December 23, 2013 by gilius

[Number Six]

you agree Jesus is a "type" for Titus, hence sent by father to preach good news proving the parallels are there by typological design?

 

I don't agree. Divine filiations are a wide theme in the Hellenistic ecumene. I don't see why should we reduce it to a relation between Jesus and Titus, while there's an obvious relation between Jesus, Titus, and much more.

But I don't assume you're aware of this, since you think one can come up with an understanding of Christianity after reading just a few texts contemporary to the Gospels.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Number Six

[indianasmith]

I think that two writers from the same cultural milieu, describing similar events that occurred forty years apart in the same part of the world will probably parallel each other to a remarkable extent. That doesn't mean one is based on the other; it simply means they were men who lived close to one another in time, in the same geographic region, sharing a similar religious and cultural vocabulary, and chronicling events as they saw and understood them.

 

Josephus' books were not published until well into the 90's AD.  The Synoptic Gospels were almost certainly completed by 70 AD and possibly a decade earlier, according to most mainstream New Testament critics.  Paul's letters were all written before his death in 68 AD.  I think the parallels you cite are coincidental and meaningless, especially when you consider that the similarities in wording are frequently used to describe radically different events and circumstances, something the cherrypicking of phrases fails to reveal.

 

Last of all, if the Flavian Emperors would go to the trouble to invent a new religion, why on earth then would they not legalize it and promote it?  Why is Domitian remembered as a persecutor of the early church?  Why would Nero blame the Great Fire of Rome on the Christians if the faith did not exist until a decade after his death?

 

I am a newbie here on this forum and hope I am not speaking out of turn, but your hypothesis makes little sense to me.

[caldrail]

 

1. Yes, I'm trying to show that one book is based on another, but I haven't got to the "why" part yet, other than concluding that it was the Flavians who authored the books, invented Christianity. So you believe the similarities are there simply by chance? The comparisons do not appear too unique by your judgement?

I've already outlined my objections to your premis. Creating such an assertion merely by linking observed 'similarities' is not a very good basis for building a revision of established history, because events are rarely unique by themselves - they're almost always interconnected with other events, coloured by cultural bias and expectations, and are often described in terms that exclude a hidden complexity, by which I mean if something happens, then observers attempt to find a single cause or offender - you have only to watch a news broadcast on television to see that at work. Journalists love on-screen investigation and derived conclusions.

 

 

 

2. I agree that oral histories could explain why the gospels share similarities with each other, but it doesn't explain why they share such unique similarities with Josephus' Wars of the Jews, since this is a different kind of book.

Not really. Josephus was a Judaean. His opinions are coloured by his culural background.

 

 

 

3. So 40 parallels is only a limited sample? There's a lot more, but I haven't bothered including them because I thought 40 would be more than enough to demonstrate this, and pretty much every chapter of the synoptics contains a parallel matching Wars of the Jews (in sequence). What more would you want? There's enough proof here to show that one book is based on another, but you don't appear to be seeing the unique patterns.

Today I popped into my local Subway. So did another customer, at the same time. We both bought a breakfast sub. How odd. Obviously there's a conspiracy, especially since over the last years hundreds of people have been doing exactly the same thing.

 

Similarities and parallels are not necessarily proof. Sometimes it marks only an observation of human or societal behaviour that has no significance to each other. Personally I think you're on a colossal wild goose chase en par with searching for aliens at Area 51. Until you start to find something more damning than a passing similarity, this quest of yours cannot achieve anything credible.