Where is his evidence? He cites no source of any scripture here ...merely asserting that the Bible was written "shortly after the time of christ" - how shortly after? 10 years? 50 years? A hundred years? More godswallop!
Wait, wait, Catholics threw out verses? The authors of the New Testament WERE Catholics. The modern Canon was derived from the Damasus List, not some "Alexandrian manuscript". Additionally, the modern Biblical Canon was not decided until the late 4th Century by Pope St Damasus I issued the decree from the Council of Rome. Check your facts, and leave your prejudice and self-justification at the door, thank you very much.
Oh, and in qualification of my first statement - check the contents page of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. You'll find the Catholic one is seven books heavier in the Old Testament. See (youtube url) watch?v=9aozoXFdr80 for more info.
@lawwellsy You could not be more wrong. The Bible was written by 40 different authors. Mark wrote Mark. Matthew wrote Matthew. Isaiah wrote Isaiah. Moses acted as scribe to YHWH in writing Torah, the first five books. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate the accuracy of translations. And on and on and on.
@GmaM11 *Facepalm* The Bible is a library - of course it has multiple men who authored it! I'm saying the New Testament was written by Catholics, that they books were collected and compiled as canon by Catholics, and believed in by Catholics. Paul wasn't Anglican; Peter wasn't a Baptist; Luke wasn't interested in Liberation Theology. They were CATHOLIC!
@lawwellsy - The original four gospels where written under Flavian Emperors, then there is a 40 odd Emperor gap, then we get Flavius Constantine and family. Also, Luke and Acts is dedicated to Flavius Sabinus.
All of the books of Christianity, the gospels, the pauline material, etc, was written post 70 AD by the Romans. So who cares how they put it together?
@Franknarfable The Gospels were indeed written between 70-90AD. However, at least some of the New Testament letters are dateable back to the 50s (Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians (which can possibly go back to 48AD), Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) and the 60s (1 Peter, Colossians, Ephesians). I think you have some revision to do on that account.
And while you're at it, might you perhaps enlighten me as to your point with the Roman Emperors. A curious mind wishes to know.
@lawwellsy - First of all, the Pauline Epistles where all written after 70 AD. Todays scholars have been completely suckered into thinking Paul was real and relative from 52 AD onwards.
The fact is, the life of Paul was created using Josephus as a template. They share more similarities then siamese twins. Josephus was in his mid-late teens at the time of the first epistles and mixed with many of the same people as Paul.
Using Josephus, Paul APPEARS relative to that time.
@Franknarfable So, all the Pauline letters were written post-70AD, and yet Josephus, who was born ~37AD, and would have been a teenager from 50-57AD, which is at least a decade before you say said letters exist. So no, I don't follow.
@lawwellsy - Josephus' writings cover his entire life. Correct? He was alive at the time of the epistles and by all accounts has a pretty good memory, though he probably wrote constantly.
Let's invent a guy called Paul and write letters that appear to have been written from 50-57 AD. How do we do that?
Let's look at Josephus and copy our information from his life. Or just ask him, after all, he is called Flavius. The same name as the Emperors from this time period.
@Franknarfable But Josephus never wrote about himself. He wrote about theology and history, not autobiography. And the names? Are you freakin' kidding me? Just because my first name is Liam doesn't mean I'm related to Liam Neeson. I do follow now, and I see you are nothing more than an idiot. You disregard modern scholars in favour of your own little theory of an invented religion. Are you actually Christian, or an athiest?
@lawwellsy - "Josephus never wrote about himself" - He wrote Vida, his life story. And you're calling me an idiot? Tut-tut.
"my first name is Liam doesn't mean I'm related to Liam Neeson" - And now we see that you really don't understand anything or you don't want to understand.
I have explained everything you've asked and you conclude with nonsense. Case closed buddy,
@Franknarfable On the account of Josephus, I stand corrected, and the taking of the name Flavius I was also wrong on. Small fry compared with my questions. Now, in order: 1- Explain how the NT can be determined by the Flavian emperors when it was only decided in the 4th Century, 2- Explain why the Flavian emperors you say wrote the NT persecuted the Christians, and 3- Are you Christian or not.
1 - I've been christened, so I guess that makes me a Christian, though I was a baby at the time.
2. The New Testament was put together in the 4th century, but it was written in the 1st. The satirical parallels, the use of Josephus and the Titus/Jesus typology indicate Roman authorship.
3. I don't believe the Flavians or Nero persecuted the Christians. Not Roman/Jesus Christians anyway. (i will expand in next comment)
4. What do you want to know about Acts and Revelations?
@Franknarfable You're not a Christian - your answer to 1 tells me as much. You have still failed to account for the 46 non-canonical Gospels, such as the Gnostic Gospels, as being written by Roman officials. You also fail to explain how said Roman officials could so thoroughly understand and comprehend Jewish scripture to provide such scriptural support for their "satire". I'll answer the persecution part on the other one.
@lawwellsy - Right, so I explain the MAIN books of the NT and you need the others explaining? What is it you don't understand about it?
"explain how said Roman officials could so thoroughly understand and comprehend Jewish scripture"
You're implying that Romans where not informed even though they where the most well-educated and well-read persons from this entire time period. They had access to all the great libraries and had JOSEPHUS.
@Franknarfable You fail to account for the differences in their theological content, eg the synoptics versus John versus the mysterious gnostic "knowledge". And why would the Romans care for an obscure religion in some backwater region of the Empire? The Greeks and the Egyptians would have been far more important to them than the Jews. Non sequitur.
@lawwellsy - The fact is, the gospels can be proven satire on the war. So even though their may be differences in theological content we still have to explain the satire. We cannot just ignore it.
I cannot point to anyone and say "he wrote this and he wrote that" like some try to do, but it is obvious to me that Jesus Christianity is Roman. The typology between Jesus and Titus is just too apparent. Why would non-Romans do this?
@Franknarfable No, it's not fact. It's conjecture. Nothing more. You've failed to establish the unlikelihood of the traditional history of Christian authorship, and enhance the probability of your own theory. In short, your explanation may be complete, but it remains unlikely. And have you considered that any similarities between Jesus, Titus, Paul and Josephus might be coincidental? And YOU have still failed to account for the Roman interest in a backwater religion. It remains a non sequitur.
@lawwellsy - Judaism was not a "back-water religion"? You're forgetting that Vespasian and Titus where Emperors of Rome. It was their great military victories over the Jews that are immortalized. They're known for their conflicts with Jews. And didn't Nero have a Jewish wife?
And no, it's not just coincidence. One or two parallels is coincidence, not an endless stream of them. And not when numerous parallels appear in sequence with each other. And not when they are consistent.
@Franknarfable Judaism was backwater. No Emperor ever offered sacrifice to God like the Jews. And a wife merely had to be beautiful. In short, it does not follow.
And so, you still fail to establish the motive for such a hoodwink. The Roman way of pacifying rebels was to kill and kill and kill until the population got the message. PR wasn't pretty in Roman times, but it was effective. Also, if they're trying to get Jews on-side, why bother evangelising Gentiles?
@lawwellsy - Gospel means good news (of military victory). They where written after 70 and are a literary version of the arch of Titus. God the father and the son of god who crushed the Galilean towns, encircled Jerusalem and razed the temple as their divine retribution against the Jews for wickedness.
You are blocking out what is right in front of you and claiming it doesn't follow. Good luck with that.
Religion is political. That is motivation enough. To pacify and control.
@Franknarfable So religion can never be exactly what religion claims to be itself, but rather what you claim it to be. I think I'll take the claims of the religion a bit more seriously than a conspiracy theorist.
You have proposed a multi-generational conspiracy by one family to rule their empire with a competence and confidentiality no large group of people has ever been able to achieve. I call bunk, and you, an idiot. If you believe in nothing, you'll fall for anything.
@lawwellsy - You're ranting about conspiracies and "debunking" a different theory - "You believe in Christianity? Here is a debunking of Islam" - Great.
I am merely showing you the parallels (of which I have shown a fraction) and trying to make sense of them. You have zero explanations for them. You asked if I think they could be coincidences, but what do YOU think? Grow a pair and deal with the evidence.
It's not a conspiracy, it's an oligarchy. That's how it works.
@Franknarfable Since it's apparently so secret that mainstream historians don't accept it, I call conspiracy. My charge stands.
And as for parallels... seriously, do you expect me to believe that? Christianity has had so many parallels made between it and various pagan sects I can but laugh. They prove nothing except an overactive imagination. I once again suggest you read Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. It might explain why your position is so weak.
@lawwellsy - You just tried to debunk satirical parallels by giving me a link to Piso theory. So that was a fail. Now you trying to pool it with the pagan sect people. Why not just deal with the theory that's put in front of you?
Your idea of an overactive imagination -
1) In Jerusalem, a woman called Mary eats the flesh of her own son during passover.
2) In Jerusalem, a son of Mary offers his flesh to be eaten during passover.
That's not a parallel is it? No, just an overactive imagination.
@lawwellsy - That's Piso theory. The only thing that has in common with the satires is Roman authorship. I have no idea how they come up with Arrius Piso. It's almost like someone told them it was Arrius Piso and they worked backwards.
The Piso people do NOT mention Titus/Jesus typology or the sequential satires. They approach it from a completely different angle.
It's not the same and "debunking" Piso does not make parallels disappear. Sorry.
@Franknarfable You were bringing up Josephus earlier, and Titus actually was mentioned in the article as being in on this conspiracy. Somehow, I think you're in that group of the Even NEWER and BETTER Classical History stream. Or did you not read the whole thing?
Seriously mate, stop trolling. You have no evidence, only conjecture and rumour. Your mistake is to assume the latter to be the former. It's not one you should make. Now go away and think before you make even an bigger ass of yourself.
@lawwellsy - "Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke" - 2008 Seyoon Kim, professor of New Testament - Supportive of pro-roman NT
"James the brother of Jesus" - 1997 Robert Eisenman - Supportive of pro-roman NT.
"Caesars Messiah" - 2005 Joseph Atwill - Supportive of pro-roman NT.
NCS people try to attach themselves to these kinds of scholars. These scholar refuse to be linked to NCS, they hate it. They think Piso is a joke. No-one cares about NCS.
The similarities are still quite eerie. You claim a typographical similarity of story, and yet you fail to account for the same basic idea - Roman invention of Christ. Again, you fail to counter my statement that if Jesus had not existed, Man would not have invented Him (He is that subversive).
@lawwellsy - And the NCS are New Classical Scholarship - they attach themselves to writers like Atwill, but Atwill hates being pooled with them. He laughs at them.
He thinks - How can they discover the writers of every single book of the NT yet fail to notice a Jesus/Titus typology? He actually sat down with one of these guys and asked how they came up with Arrius Piso, they couldn't answer him. Madness.
It's not the same thing and neither is pagan sects (zeitgeist, etc).
@lawwellsy - Also, the literary and structural analysis of Atwill and especially Hudson where applauded when they suggested Emilia Lanier as a candidate for shakespeare.
Though when using those skills on the New Testament they are labelled as completely crazy.
If anything their NT discoveries are more convincing then Shakespeare. Also, their discoveries SUPPORT a thesis already being discussed - Roman authorship.
NT scholars think they're dealing with real history, that's the difference.
@Franknarfable On Shakespeare, it is a fact that he did not exist. Instead, his plays were written in 1589 by Francis Bacon who used a Ouiji board to enslave playwriting ghosts (proof: watch?v=-iAUwamHTM4). I should also make a suggestion that Johnathon Swift's Modest Proposal means that HE invented Catholicism, since he proposes the eating of human flesh in order to make people happy.
You're not much better than either of those suggestions, you know.
@lawwellsy - Gospels are satire on Roman-Jewish war. There's also a typology present with God/Jesus, father/son, Vespasian/Titus.
Roman-Jewish war -
Titus begins campaign at Galilee, his men fish the enemy from the water. He then moves on the Gadara. A woman called Mary eats her own sons flesh during passover in Jerusalem. Three men are crucified, one survives. Simon is killed in Rome and John is spared.
@Franknarfable Someone survives crucifixion? Methinks you don't realise that crucifixion killed people. One it started... there was no surviving. Additionally, you have failed to address the obvious contradiction I have raised earlier, and you also fail to suggest a motive. As far as I can see, you're just being a troll.
@lawwellsy - Look, Josephus wrote that after the destruction he saw three old associates of his had been crucified. He asks Titus if he take them down, Titus agrees. Two of them die, but one is brought back to health.
Josephus wrote it, don't blame me.
A motive? Are you kidding me? Spoils of war, anti-jewish, pro-roman, pacifying it's followers, the propaganda campaign undertaken by Vespasian after the years of bloodshed... take you're pick, the NT fits perfectly into every single one.
@Franknarfable You didn't answer my question, and you also fail to account for the persecution of Christians peaking under the Roman Emperors Nero (predating your Flavius dynasty), Domitian (within said dynasty), and others beside. You also fail to account for the other 44 gospels that were deemed non-canonical along with numerous other letters, revelations and Acts of the Apostles, and how the NT was determined in the 4th Century AD.
The term “Christian” means a follower of a Christ (leader claiming to have been foreseen by the Jews’ messianic prophecies). Kristos is Greek for Hebrew word Messiah. While Romans did indeed persecute “Christians” in the way history recorded, these were not “Roman/Jesus Christians” but Jewish zealots.
Their history was stolen by the Romans as it could not be erased, unlike everything else. The Jews (Christians) came under continued persecutions for many years after.
@Franknarfable It was general policy in pagan Rome for all subjects and citizens to sacrifice to the Emperor (just a pinch of incense). Christians balked, and they basically denied the divinity of the Emperor. This was unacceptable as far as the Emperor was concerned, and so death came to those who defied their "living god".
@lawwellsy - What is your source for this "general policy" and how "Christian balked"?
You bet they thought they where divine, especially Domitian. I think he just killed anyone he didn't like or who he thought was a threat, but the gospels are about his family and dedicated to his uncle. You do the math.
Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius OWED their positions to the Flavians.
@Franknarfable The general policy was noted because of the variety of gods worshipped throughout Rome (they were added to the Roman pantheon whenever they were conquered). The emperors were divinised under the Imperial cult. This, naturally, violates the 1st Commandment. Or have you no logical faculties?
@lawwellsy Yes the Emperors were divinised but how are we explaining satirical parallels between the NT and Josephus?
So you're suggesting that the Historia Augusta is a one off? Just a maverick writer playing with the rules of history and historical evidence? It is a fictional history, it has Roman authors and it comes from a time when Eusebius wrote all of his "evidence". The time of Flavius Constantine.
@lawwellsy - If the Romans authored Paul and the four gospels then who do you think wrote "the other 44 gospels"? What do you want me to say about them?
@Franknarfable Considering the number of styles and distinct theological subtexts, even between the canonical gospels, I find it hard to think the precise same mindset produced such a vast array. The Gnostic gospels read differently to the anti-semetic Gospel of Peter (2nd Century), which reads differently to the Gospel of John (canonical). I'm not even sure if you've read the Gospels, to be quite honest, the way you're treating them.
@lawwellsy "Considering the number of styles and distinct theological subtexts, even between the canonical gospels, I find it hard to think the precise same mindset produced such a vast array"
You had no problem with it when you thought they where written by Jews so what's the difference with Romans?
Have you ever read about the Augustan History? An amazingly vast fictional history authored by the Romans and it took a man like Ronald Syme to figure it out. That's evidence of common practice.
@Franknarfable Regarding the Historia Augusta, that's from a much later period, ~300AD. Your suggestion that it indicates a pattern in the 1st Century is therefore weak. Regarding my statement on the Gospels, they weren't written by Jews but by Christians, and some were written by heretical Christians, and this comes through. I truly do wonder, have you actually read and understood the Gospels and seen the teachings they contain? If Jesus didn't exist, mankind would not have invented Him.
pagans couldn't enter the Ark and many were drowning. So they wrote the Flood on stones with their version(Gilgamesh) according to their beliefs. So Gilgamesh actually borrowed the Flood story and not vise versa.
@POC777 Did they write it while drowning? "Many?" I thought the waters covered the whole earth, there isn't enough water on earth to do that btw. The whole point of the flood was to kill ALL the humans. Your story makes no sense. Also, you have not one shred of evidence that Genesis predates Gilgamesh. Also, Enki-du resembles Nebuchadnezzar after God struck him with madness.
I don't know why Hovind thinks one version is superior to another. You can read whatever you wish into any version of the Bible. Use any Bible to justify anything you like. The KJV consulted only a handful of different translations. The Geneva Bible, the Good News Bible, just to name two. They didn't have the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But not the Catholic Bible or even the NWT both were twisted to fit both religions doctrine! The Bible teaches if anyone adds or removes to the Word of God they make themselves liars because God is true and the Word of God is perfect.
@POC777 The current canon of the Bible was created at the Council of Nicea. Many books were omitted. Most of the Bible books were written long after the events they allegedly chronical.
At the Council of Nicea the 66 books were CONFIRMED by bishops and so were the doctrines of Christianity so that's that. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years because of careful translation from Hebrew(38 books in OT except Esther). Now the earliest Gospel is Mark written about 45 A.D followed by Matthew, Luke, John 50-60 A.D. The reason other manuscripts got "omitted" was because it wasn't inspired by God like the 66 books in the Bible.
@POC777 How do you know that any writing is inspired by God? How do you know they were carefully translated? The oldest Hebrew texts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, about a century before Christ. You mentioned 1,600 years. Funny, if you look at the ancient Near East stories, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, how some of the stories resemble stories from the Bible.
The test of canonization I know because I studied the copies myself(online and books) the Epic of Gilgamesh(is a poem about a king) is SIMILAR to Noah's Flood--both were written at same time. The only difference are the names(one of them is Noah), the ark, animals, mention of gods(polytheism) in Gilgamesh. However, in Genesis account we read God command Noah to build an Ark, bring his family in and land animals. Now Gilgamesh was written during the Flood....
Just admit it , there was no bible in a book form left by jesus.. and why would a holy person leave a book for people to read which has thousands of mistakes, such as God created vegetations then earth then sun. .. if someone copied one bible wrong then how come all the bibles today are wrong...?
this is so wrong. Good thing he has all those old bones behind him because without them we'd maybe think this is some uneducated idot speaking jibberish.
Read "MIsquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrnann. The early manuscripts were wildly variant. If you can find a reputable textual critic ( someone who is truly an expert in the field of ancient new testament manuscripts) who is also a fundamentalist, please give me their name. I would like to hear what they have to say.
Comment removed
ydnar0591 5 days ago
Is there anything in there about tax evasion you fuck?
allendaniel89 2 weeks ago
Where is his evidence? He cites no source of any scripture here ...merely asserting that the Bible was written "shortly after the time of christ" - how shortly after? 10 years? 50 years? A hundred years? More godswallop!
vernonpage 3 months ago
Wait, wait, Catholics threw out verses? The authors of the New Testament WERE Catholics. The modern Canon was derived from the Damasus List, not some "Alexandrian manuscript". Additionally, the modern Biblical Canon was not decided until the late 4th Century by Pope St Damasus I issued the decree from the Council of Rome. Check your facts, and leave your prejudice and self-justification at the door, thank you very much.
lawwellsy 5 months ago
Oh, and in qualification of my first statement - check the contents page of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. You'll find the Catholic one is seven books heavier in the Old Testament. See (youtube url) watch?v=9aozoXFdr80 for more info.
lawwellsy 5 months ago
@lawwellsy You could not be more wrong. The Bible was written by 40 different authors. Mark wrote Mark. Matthew wrote Matthew. Isaiah wrote Isaiah. Moses acted as scribe to YHWH in writing Torah, the first five books. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate the accuracy of translations. And on and on and on.
GmaM11 4 months ago
@GmaM11 *Facepalm* The Bible is a library - of course it has multiple men who authored it! I'm saying the New Testament was written by Catholics, that they books were collected and compiled as canon by Catholics, and believed in by Catholics. Paul wasn't Anglican; Peter wasn't a Baptist; Luke wasn't interested in Liberation Theology. They were CATHOLIC!
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - The original four gospels where written under Flavian Emperors, then there is a 40 odd Emperor gap, then we get Flavius Constantine and family. Also, Luke and Acts is dedicated to Flavius Sabinus.
All of the books of Christianity, the gospels, the pauline material, etc, was written post 70 AD by the Romans. So who cares how they put it together?
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable The Gospels were indeed written between 70-90AD. However, at least some of the New Testament letters are dateable back to the 50s (Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians (which can possibly go back to 48AD), Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) and the 60s (1 Peter, Colossians, Ephesians). I think you have some revision to do on that account.
And while you're at it, might you perhaps enlighten me as to your point with the Roman Emperors. A curious mind wishes to know.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - First of all, the Pauline Epistles where all written after 70 AD. Todays scholars have been completely suckered into thinking Paul was real and relative from 52 AD onwards.
The fact is, the life of Paul was created using Josephus as a template. They share more similarities then siamese twins. Josephus was in his mid-late teens at the time of the first epistles and mixed with many of the same people as Paul.
Using Josephus, Paul APPEARS relative to that time.
You follow?
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable So, all the Pauline letters were written post-70AD, and yet Josephus, who was born ~37AD, and would have been a teenager from 50-57AD, which is at least a decade before you say said letters exist. So no, I don't follow.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - Josephus' writings cover his entire life. Correct? He was alive at the time of the epistles and by all accounts has a pretty good memory, though he probably wrote constantly.
Let's invent a guy called Paul and write letters that appear to have been written from 50-57 AD. How do we do that?
Let's look at Josephus and copy our information from his life. Or just ask him, after all, he is called Flavius. The same name as the Emperors from this time period.
You still not follow?
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable But Josephus never wrote about himself. He wrote about theology and history, not autobiography. And the names? Are you freakin' kidding me? Just because my first name is Liam doesn't mean I'm related to Liam Neeson. I do follow now, and I see you are nothing more than an idiot. You disregard modern scholars in favour of your own little theory of an invented religion. Are you actually Christian, or an athiest?
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - "Josephus never wrote about himself" - He wrote Vida, his life story. And you're calling me an idiot? Tut-tut.
"my first name is Liam doesn't mean I'm related to Liam Neeson" - And now we see that you really don't understand anything or you don't want to understand.
I have explained everything you've asked and you conclude with nonsense. Case closed buddy,
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable On the account of Josephus, I stand corrected, and the taking of the name Flavius I was also wrong on. Small fry compared with my questions. Now, in order: 1- Explain how the NT can be determined by the Flavian emperors when it was only decided in the 4th Century, 2- Explain why the Flavian emperors you say wrote the NT persecuted the Christians, and 3- Are you Christian or not.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy -
1 - I've been christened, so I guess that makes me a Christian, though I was a baby at the time.
2. The New Testament was put together in the 4th century, but it was written in the 1st. The satirical parallels, the use of Josephus and the Titus/Jesus typology indicate Roman authorship.
3. I don't believe the Flavians or Nero persecuted the Christians. Not Roman/Jesus Christians anyway. (i will expand in next comment)
4. What do you want to know about Acts and Revelations?
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable You're not a Christian - your answer to 1 tells me as much. You have still failed to account for the 46 non-canonical Gospels, such as the Gnostic Gospels, as being written by Roman officials. You also fail to explain how said Roman officials could so thoroughly understand and comprehend Jewish scripture to provide such scriptural support for their "satire". I'll answer the persecution part on the other one.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - Right, so I explain the MAIN books of the NT and you need the others explaining? What is it you don't understand about it?
"explain how said Roman officials could so thoroughly understand and comprehend Jewish scripture"
You're implying that Romans where not informed even though they where the most well-educated and well-read persons from this entire time period. They had access to all the great libraries and had JOSEPHUS.
Did Josephus not understand Jewish scripture?????
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable You fail to account for the differences in their theological content, eg the synoptics versus John versus the mysterious gnostic "knowledge". And why would the Romans care for an obscure religion in some backwater region of the Empire? The Greeks and the Egyptians would have been far more important to them than the Jews. Non sequitur.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - The fact is, the gospels can be proven satire on the war. So even though their may be differences in theological content we still have to explain the satire. We cannot just ignore it.
I cannot point to anyone and say "he wrote this and he wrote that" like some try to do, but it is obvious to me that Jesus Christianity is Roman. The typology between Jesus and Titus is just too apparent. Why would non-Romans do this?
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable No, it's not fact. It's conjecture. Nothing more. You've failed to establish the unlikelihood of the traditional history of Christian authorship, and enhance the probability of your own theory. In short, your explanation may be complete, but it remains unlikely. And have you considered that any similarities between Jesus, Titus, Paul and Josephus might be coincidental? And YOU have still failed to account for the Roman interest in a backwater religion. It remains a non sequitur.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - Judaism was not a "back-water religion"? You're forgetting that Vespasian and Titus where Emperors of Rome. It was their great military victories over the Jews that are immortalized. They're known for their conflicts with Jews. And didn't Nero have a Jewish wife?
And no, it's not just coincidence. One or two parallels is coincidence, not an endless stream of them. And not when numerous parallels appear in sequence with each other. And not when they are consistent.
Answered.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable Judaism was backwater. No Emperor ever offered sacrifice to God like the Jews. And a wife merely had to be beautiful. In short, it does not follow.
And so, you still fail to establish the motive for such a hoodwink. The Roman way of pacifying rebels was to kill and kill and kill until the population got the message. PR wasn't pretty in Roman times, but it was effective. Also, if they're trying to get Jews on-side, why bother evangelising Gentiles?
You still have a non sequitur.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - Gospel means good news (of military victory). They where written after 70 and are a literary version of the arch of Titus. God the father and the son of god who crushed the Galilean towns, encircled Jerusalem and razed the temple as their divine retribution against the Jews for wickedness.
You are blocking out what is right in front of you and claiming it doesn't follow. Good luck with that.
Religion is political. That is motivation enough. To pacify and control.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable So religion can never be exactly what religion claims to be itself, but rather what you claim it to be. I think I'll take the claims of the religion a bit more seriously than a conspiracy theorist.
You have proposed a multi-generational conspiracy by one family to rule their empire with a competence and confidentiality no large group of people has ever been able to achieve. I call bunk, and you, an idiot. If you believe in nothing, you'll fall for anything.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - You're ranting about conspiracies and "debunking" a different theory - "You believe in Christianity? Here is a debunking of Islam" - Great.
I am merely showing you the parallels (of which I have shown a fraction) and trying to make sense of them. You have zero explanations for them. You asked if I think they could be coincidences, but what do YOU think? Grow a pair and deal with the evidence.
It's not a conspiracy, it's an oligarchy. That's how it works.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable Since it's apparently so secret that mainstream historians don't accept it, I call conspiracy. My charge stands.
And as for parallels... seriously, do you expect me to believe that? Christianity has had so many parallels made between it and various pagan sects I can but laugh. They prove nothing except an overactive imagination. I once again suggest you read Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. It might explain why your position is so weak.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - You just tried to debunk satirical parallels by giving me a link to Piso theory. So that was a fail. Now you trying to pool it with the pagan sect people. Why not just deal with the theory that's put in front of you?
Your idea of an overactive imagination -
1) In Jerusalem, a woman called Mary eats the flesh of her own son during passover.
2) In Jerusalem, a son of Mary offers his flesh to be eaten during passover.
That's not a parallel is it? No, just an overactive imagination.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable For a proper debunking, see tektonics(dot)org/lp/pisocake(dot)html
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - That's Piso theory. The only thing that has in common with the satires is Roman authorship. I have no idea how they come up with Arrius Piso. It's almost like someone told them it was Arrius Piso and they worked backwards.
The Piso people do NOT mention Titus/Jesus typology or the sequential satires. They approach it from a completely different angle.
It's not the same and "debunking" Piso does not make parallels disappear. Sorry.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable You were bringing up Josephus earlier, and Titus actually was mentioned in the article as being in on this conspiracy. Somehow, I think you're in that group of the Even NEWER and BETTER Classical History stream. Or did you not read the whole thing?
Seriously mate, stop trolling. You have no evidence, only conjecture and rumour. Your mistake is to assume the latter to be the former. It's not one you should make. Now go away and think before you make even an bigger ass of yourself.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - "Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke" - 2008 Seyoon Kim, professor of New Testament - Supportive of pro-roman NT
"James the brother of Jesus" - 1997 Robert Eisenman - Supportive of pro-roman NT.
"Caesars Messiah" - 2005 Joseph Atwill - Supportive of pro-roman NT.
NCS people try to attach themselves to these kinds of scholars. These scholar refuse to be linked to NCS, they hate it. They think Piso is a joke. No-one cares about NCS.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable tektonics(dot)org/books/csmessrvw(dot)html
The similarities are still quite eerie. You claim a typographical similarity of story, and yet you fail to account for the same basic idea - Roman invention of Christ. Again, you fail to counter my statement that if Jesus had not existed, Man would not have invented Him (He is that subversive).
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - And the NCS are New Classical Scholarship - they attach themselves to writers like Atwill, but Atwill hates being pooled with them. He laughs at them.
He thinks - How can they discover the writers of every single book of the NT yet fail to notice a Jesus/Titus typology? He actually sat down with one of these guys and asked how they came up with Arrius Piso, they couldn't answer him. Madness.
It's not the same thing and neither is pagan sects (zeitgeist, etc).
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - Also, the literary and structural analysis of Atwill and especially Hudson where applauded when they suggested Emilia Lanier as a candidate for shakespeare.
Though when using those skills on the New Testament they are labelled as completely crazy.
If anything their NT discoveries are more convincing then Shakespeare. Also, their discoveries SUPPORT a thesis already being discussed - Roman authorship.
NT scholars think they're dealing with real history, that's the difference.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable On Shakespeare, it is a fact that he did not exist. Instead, his plays were written in 1589 by Francis Bacon who used a Ouiji board to enslave playwriting ghosts (proof: watch?v=-iAUwamHTM4). I should also make a suggestion that Johnathon Swift's Modest Proposal means that HE invented Catholicism, since he proposes the eating of human flesh in order to make people happy.
You're not much better than either of those suggestions, you know.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - Gospels are satire on Roman-Jewish war. There's also a typology present with God/Jesus, father/son, Vespasian/Titus.
Roman-Jewish war -
Titus begins campaign at Galilee, his men fish the enemy from the water. He then moves on the Gadara. A woman called Mary eats her own sons flesh during passover in Jerusalem. Three men are crucified, one survives. Simon is killed in Rome and John is spared.
Sequential parallels = Gospels are satirical.
Houston, we can confirm Roman authorship.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable Someone survives crucifixion? Methinks you don't realise that crucifixion killed people. One it started... there was no surviving. Additionally, you have failed to address the obvious contradiction I have raised earlier, and you also fail to suggest a motive. As far as I can see, you're just being a troll.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - Look, Josephus wrote that after the destruction he saw three old associates of his had been crucified. He asks Titus if he take them down, Titus agrees. Two of them die, but one is brought back to health.
Josephus wrote it, don't blame me.
A motive? Are you kidding me? Spoils of war, anti-jewish, pro-roman, pacifying it's followers, the propaganda campaign undertaken by Vespasian after the years of bloodshed... take you're pick, the NT fits perfectly into every single one.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable You didn't answer my question, and you also fail to account for the persecution of Christians peaking under the Roman Emperors Nero (predating your Flavius dynasty), Domitian (within said dynasty), and others beside. You also fail to account for the other 44 gospels that were deemed non-canonical along with numerous other letters, revelations and Acts of the Apostles, and how the NT was determined in the 4th Century AD.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy Persecutions -
The term “Christian” means a follower of a Christ (leader claiming to have been foreseen by the Jews’ messianic prophecies). Kristos is Greek for Hebrew word Messiah. While Romans did indeed persecute “Christians” in the way history recorded, these were not “Roman/Jesus Christians” but Jewish zealots.
Their history was stolen by the Romans as it could not be erased, unlike everything else. The Jews (Christians) came under continued persecutions for many years after.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable It was general policy in pagan Rome for all subjects and citizens to sacrifice to the Emperor (just a pinch of incense). Christians balked, and they basically denied the divinity of the Emperor. This was unacceptable as far as the Emperor was concerned, and so death came to those who defied their "living god".
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - What is your source for this "general policy" and how "Christian balked"?
You bet they thought they where divine, especially Domitian. I think he just killed anyone he didn't like or who he thought was a threat, but the gospels are about his family and dedicated to his uncle. You do the math.
Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius OWED their positions to the Flavians.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable The general policy was noted because of the variety of gods worshipped throughout Rome (they were added to the Roman pantheon whenever they were conquered). The emperors were divinised under the Imperial cult. This, naturally, violates the 1st Commandment. Or have you no logical faculties?
lawwellsy 4 months ago
@lawwellsy Yes the Emperors were divinised but how are we explaining satirical parallels between the NT and Josephus?
So you're suggesting that the Historia Augusta is a one off? Just a maverick writer playing with the rules of history and historical evidence? It is a fictional history, it has Roman authors and it comes from a time when Eusebius wrote all of his "evidence". The time of Flavius Constantine.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@lawwellsy - If the Romans authored Paul and the four gospels then who do you think wrote "the other 44 gospels"? What do you want me to say about them?
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable Considering the number of styles and distinct theological subtexts, even between the canonical gospels, I find it hard to think the precise same mindset produced such a vast array. The Gnostic gospels read differently to the anti-semetic Gospel of Peter (2nd Century), which reads differently to the Gospel of John (canonical). I'm not even sure if you've read the Gospels, to be quite honest, the way you're treating them.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
Comment removed
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@lawwellsy "Considering the number of styles and distinct theological subtexts, even between the canonical gospels, I find it hard to think the precise same mindset produced such a vast array"
You had no problem with it when you thought they where written by Jews so what's the difference with Romans?
Have you ever read about the Augustan History? An amazingly vast fictional history authored by the Romans and it took a man like Ronald Syme to figure it out. That's evidence of common practice.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable Regarding the Historia Augusta, that's from a much later period, ~300AD. Your suggestion that it indicates a pattern in the 1st Century is therefore weak. Regarding my statement on the Gospels, they weren't written by Jews but by Christians, and some were written by heretical Christians, and this comes through. I truly do wonder, have you actually read and understood the Gospels and seen the teachings they contain? If Jesus didn't exist, mankind would not have invented Him.
lawwellsy 4 months ago
Comment removed
lawwellsy 4 months ago
How many ways can you create a lie.
mikekcode 5 months ago
pagans couldn't enter the Ark and many were drowning. So they wrote the Flood on stones with their version(Gilgamesh) according to their beliefs. So Gilgamesh actually borrowed the Flood story and not vise versa.
POC777 10 months ago
@POC777 Did they write it while drowning? "Many?" I thought the waters covered the whole earth, there isn't enough water on earth to do that btw. The whole point of the flood was to kill ALL the humans. Your story makes no sense. Also, you have not one shred of evidence that Genesis predates Gilgamesh. Also, Enki-du resembles Nebuchadnezzar after God struck him with madness.
RadarKat73080 10 months ago
Aren't the earliest manuscripts we have (The Codex Siniaticus) from the 4th century, in Greek?
GTosca10 10 months ago
@archeng123
They framed him for telling the truth. The story of the IRS was a set up to shut him up!
POC777 10 months ago
I don't know why Hovind thinks one version is superior to another. You can read whatever you wish into any version of the Bible. Use any Bible to justify anything you like. The KJV consulted only a handful of different translations. The Geneva Bible, the Good News Bible, just to name two. They didn't have the Dead Sea Scrolls.
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
@RadarKat73080
But not the Catholic Bible or even the NWT both were twisted to fit both religions doctrine! The Bible teaches if anyone adds or removes to the Word of God they make themselves liars because God is true and the Word of God is perfect.
POC777 10 months ago
@POC777 The current canon of the Bible was created at the Council of Nicea. Many books were omitted. Most of the Bible books were written long after the events they allegedly chronical.
RadarKat73080 10 months ago
@RadarKat73080
At the Council of Nicea the 66 books were CONFIRMED by bishops and so were the doctrines of Christianity so that's that. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years because of careful translation from Hebrew(38 books in OT except Esther). Now the earliest Gospel is Mark written about 45 A.D followed by Matthew, Luke, John 50-60 A.D. The reason other manuscripts got "omitted" was because it wasn't inspired by God like the 66 books in the Bible.
We have the complete Bible!
POC777 10 months ago
@POC777 How do you know that any writing is inspired by God? How do you know they were carefully translated? The oldest Hebrew texts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, about a century before Christ. You mentioned 1,600 years. Funny, if you look at the ancient Near East stories, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, how some of the stories resemble stories from the Bible.
RadarKat73080 10 months ago
@RadarKat73080
The test of canonization I know because I studied the copies myself(online and books) the Epic of Gilgamesh(is a poem about a king) is SIMILAR to Noah's Flood--both were written at same time. The only difference are the names(one of them is Noah), the ark, animals, mention of gods(polytheism) in Gilgamesh. However, in Genesis account we read God command Noah to build an Ark, bring his family in and land animals. Now Gilgamesh was written during the Flood....
POC777 10 months ago
Just admit it , there was no bible in a book form left by jesus.. and why would a holy person leave a book for people to read which has thousands of mistakes, such as God created vegetations then earth then sun. .. if someone copied one bible wrong then how come all the bibles today are wrong...?
peacegrip 1 year ago
this is so wrong. Good thing he has all those old bones behind him because without them we'd maybe think this is some uneducated idot speaking jibberish.
sunshineuklondon1965 1 year ago
Read "MIsquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrnann. The early manuscripts were wildly variant. If you can find a reputable textual critic ( someone who is truly an expert in the field of ancient new testament manuscripts) who is also a fundamentalist, please give me their name. I would like to hear what they have to say.
MrSteveSpears 1 year ago