indianasmith Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I wonder how many similar parallels you could find between the works of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria. Maybe those two were up to something, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 If there's one thing human beings are good at it's spotting similarities. That's why we have such successful witch hunts occaisionally, why conspiracy theory attracts new adherents every year in spite of all logic and reason, the reason why 'Where's Wally' books sell to the general puiblic. It isn't about similarity - it's about the criteria you use for finding them. I'm sure that the works that you suggest both contain the latin word for 'and' quite a few times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianasmith Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 A few other questions for the OP here:How do you discount the historical references and manuscript evidence that Christianity already existed before the Flavian dynasty came to power? What would the motivation be for creating the Christian faith and then NOT legalizing it? How do you discount the evidence from several ancient sources that Nero denounced Christianity immediately after the Great Fire of 64 AD? How do you account for the fact that virtually all the early converts to Christianity were from Judea, a region that had no fondness for the Flavians and whose occupants would have been most ideally positioned to reveal such a fraud? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onasander Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) He hasn't been back since the site went down a while back... I wouldn't bother with a cross examination this late, for on his part, he is stuck in a Narcissistic rut right, and won't let any harm come to his idea, cause he IS the idea. At least last we spoke. He knows what he has to do.... been told by several people here as to how he could better develop, present, and critically debate his thesis... but everytime he was pressed on a point to try and develop it, he would try.... see how impossible of a task it was, and would drop the effort and push via enthusiasm and faith alone that this idea of his was correct. He is forever welcome to develop his ideas. I don't see much of a point in resurrecting a bad incident in his past though... it's been several months, let the guy heal and adapt, grow in wisdom and change his approach. It's a generally bad idea, but even bad ideas can raise interesting points, so we should encourage him to study up on historical techniques if were going to "talk to him" if he is indeed lurking out there. He may very well, against every expectation, stumble across something interesting and unexpected. But he shouldn't push his luck too far either. I can tolerate a few bad ideas in everyman, but not only bad ideas. He can diversify into other areas of Roman history less controversial to show he is a balanced thinker capable of more that just talking about the Flavians. Edited November 5, 2014 by Onasander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianasmith Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 I'm a noob here and didn't realize this was an old thread. Just a topic I have an interest in. Thanks for the heads up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.