Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Scenario 3 : The church gets big, both in the base of support and with the ears of important people, and begins to explain its beginnings with literature, including a myth baked in of how early that literature is. If there were no very early literature, it's only natural some claiming to be early w...

Stephan Huller wrote:I mean a Roman wouldn't be referenced simply by his 'given name' either.

Not even Divus Iulius?

I thought that having a connection with a historical figure is what naming a comet after him was all about. "Oh, oh, yeah! We need something catchy to connect with our mythical Jesus. Remember that comet that preceded, or was it followed (not that it matters), the death of Caesar? Lets associa...

DCHindley wrote:I don't think so, as the date of it is way off and it was a one time manifestation (it probably burned up in the earth's atmosphere).

It doesn't have to be from the same time period.

Stephan Huller wrote:What could explain ascribing the four gospels to the SImonians unless 'Peter' is meant?

Why not Mark?

The point, MF was about Atwill's Book and that the Thesis has a SUBTLE TEXTURE to it. See, two of the Great Themes in Logical Thought in Western Civilization are "From the General to the Particular" and "From the Particular to the General". Given a "Jesus" in the 30s, ...

JoeWallack wrote:So many "Marks" and "Peters". How do you decide which is the source, Rock, Papals, Caesars?

Caesars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Antony

Atwill says Jesus is Titus.

http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2011/05/ ... -typology/

This is Lilith according to a MGHOW.

http://rexpatriarch.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ilith.html

What are the main differences between these two ideas?

http://caesarsmessiah.com
http://www.carotta.de