And of course we are, because Ceiling Cat told us so:
Of course, Jesus (Matthew 16:28) was just as wrong as Harold Camping:
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
So why aren’t people also making fun of Jesus?
What, you think all my wisecracks about Jesus’s intestinal fondlitude are a sign of respect?
Anyway, I never could figure out why everybody was so eager to be ruptured. I mean, personally, I’d really rather remain intact thankyouverymuch.
Cheers,
b&
P.S. We’ve still got another hour to go here in AZ before the proclaimed time. Yeah, right…. b&
verily
I have a hunch that the average christian knows very little about the book that he or she puts so much importance on.
it’s a hunch well supported by actual evidence, turns out.
IIRC, there was even a thread here a few months back that detailed how much more your average atheist knew about the bible than your average xian.
no kidding.
If one is learned in the babble, the more one is inured to it’s inanity.
As the wise old saying goes:
If you graduate from seminary and still believe in god, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Back when I was a Christian, the “kingdom” was interpreted to mean the beginning of God’s kingdom on earth, i.e. the church. The day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 marked the coming of this kingdom.
Yeah, my church said that, too. They just ignored all the mind-blowing stuff that was supposed to happen when Jesus brought the kingdom, like:
“Matthew 16:27: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”
Did any of that happen? No.
There is a school of thought that says Jesus (the fictional character of the gospels) is referring to the future coming of Titus Flavius, who did indeed encircle Jerusalem and throw the temple down so that no stone was upon another. As far as rewarding each man according to his works is concerned, thousands of Jewish rebels were crucified for their “sins”. There was surely plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth, as well.
This happened pretty much exactly 40 years after g Matthew has Jesus making the prophecy. In other words, one biblical generation and when some of those then present would have still been living.
On the Arch of Titus in Rome there is an engraving showing Titus on a chariot in the clouds.
It seems only obvious to me (after reading Atwill, at least) that the Son of Man prophecy is referring to the coming of Titus. If this is not a later insertion, seems to me it’s not unreasonable to suspect the Roman Flavians are the authors of the gospels, with a purpose of creating a replacement religion for militant messianic Judaism, that had cost them so much in face and treasure. Also, it doesn’t seem likely to be a later insertion, at least after you’ve read the whole argument.
This might be merely interesting, except that the Flavian authors apparently wanted posterity to appreciate their feat, so they made it plain by making the gospels and the official Flavian history of Titus’ campaign, Josephus’ War of the Jews, mutually referential. This means, Christianity contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I find Atwill’s arguments persuasive that the mutual references cannot be either coincidental or accidental.
Atwill’s book first edition is still available as a free download here:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/b67761f4-ecd2-423a-93a0-0ff2b9eb6149/Joseph-Atwill—Caesars-Messiah—The-Roman-Conspiracy-to-Invent-Jesus
There is a new electronic edition at scribd for a charge, that has an excellent new chapter with 34 fairly direct and in-order parallels between gLuke and Titus’ military campaign pacifying Judea, as related in Josephus’ War of the Jews. Atwill calls this the Flavian signature.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45723750/Caesar-s-Messiah-The-Roman-Conspiracy-to-Invent-Jesus-Flavian-Signature-Edition
I continue to think it’s unfortunate that Atwill’s work is being substantially overlooked.
It’s nice that preterism is already mentioned below (now that I’ve read the whole thread). Lest anyone confuse my post above or the Atwill theory for simple preterism, I hasten to add that the Caesar’s Messiah thesis asserts that the gospels were written under Flavian direction concurrently with Josephus’ history, after the fact of the putting down of the Jewish rebellion. Any references to Christianity that are prior to the 70s CE have to be in error, or references to the actual messianic Judaism that was intended by the Flavians to be replaced by the new religion. That means, the Pauline literature could not have been written in the 50s CE as generally accepted. But it is pretty easy to confirm, there is no real evidence that it was written in the 50s. It is only dated contextually. A fictional story set on the 50s CE will of course be contextually dated to the 50s CE. Atwill argues (external to the books published so far) that this was a back story commissioned by Titus’ brother Domitian, after Titus’ untimely death.
Some relevant wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
Executive summary:
The NT is fiction.
Yes, the NT is fiction written by people who knew they were writing fiction, and who had an agenda: to replace militant messianic Judaism with a religion friendly to Rome.
If I were to create a religion friendly to Rome, the central figure wouldn’t declare himself the “Son of God”.
Chris, why not? The emperors of Rome were sometimes gods, in the legal sense of having been deified by the Roman Senate. “Son of Man” Titus’ father was eventually deified, making him a true son of (a) god. Part of the rationale for Vespasian’s deification probably consisted of the declaration by Josephus that he was the true messiah of the Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
Notice that Josephus was an adopted member of the imperial Flavian family. His history of the First Jewish Rebellion is endorsed on the title page by Caesar Titus himself. It’s not an impartial history, but official propaganda, and contains hidden the true meaning to the gospels.
(Josephus is almost certainly like Jesus a fictional character, or at least has a fictionalized biography, as it is completely implausible on its face.)
Anyhow, seems to me the god of the NT is in every way similar to a patronizing Roman emperor.
Also, Christianity seems to me very friendly to Rome, from the rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, to Pilate bending over backwards to let Jesus go free. The Roman soldiers who scourged Jesus can be said to be just doing their jobs.
Furthermore, and importantly, just as Christianity can be seen as Rome-friendly, it is certainly unfriendly to Judaism. Pilate wants to free Jesus but is forced to condemn him by the Jewish elders and mob. Atwill doesn’t mention this, that I recall, but I learned recently from Ben Goren here that the Torah is often represented as a fig tree, so when Jesus whithers the fig tree, this represents Jesus whithering Judaism.
You should read Atwill. You will be glad to be free of your superstitious burden, as are we all who had to be freed or free ourselves, although you may find that you are pissed off at having been so systematically lied to, by so many for so long.
Sorry that the above is somewhat repetitious. I always proofread, then find myself making edits in the middle, then forget to proofread the whole thing at the end. Doh!
That’s certainly an interesting way to look at it, but the traditional understanding is that calling your leader the “son of God” was a denial of the deity of the emperor, a rejection of his authority. Also, don’t forget that when Jesus made the statement “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”, he finished with “and to God the things that are God’s.” This is not an affirmation of the power of Rome, but rather a call not to refuse to pay taxes. It was much more important to focus on what they called “the kingdom of Heaven”. (On a related note, anytime Jesus is recorded as talking about money, he’s usually pretty negative. He saw it as a means to an end, rather than the end itself.)
The story of Herod killing children in an attempt to destroy Jesus as a child doesn’t seem to cast Rome in a very favorable light.
Also, when Christ is before Pilate it sounds more like he is hesitant to put him to death because it is an issue that doesn’t concern him. It seems he didn’t want to crucify a religious nut whose major message was peace. He had bigger problems; consider the zealots. Pilate asks “Am I a Jew?”; he didn’t want to deal with it.
It seems pretty defiant to me when Jesus says to Pilate “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above…” I don’t know. I will definitely check out Atwill.
In addition to what Chris says:
The Romans were very hostile to early Christians. It doesn’t really make sense that they’d try making a “Rome friendly” version of Judaism only to the persecute it.
One more thing re: your statement about the Torah as the fig tree; this is usually considered a statement against the Jewish authorities, not the Torah itself. Recall that the “cleansing” of the temple takes place immediately after the cursing of the fig tree in Mark’s gospel. Also, Christ said “Don’t assume I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them”.
Thanks for the replies, Chris and Microraptor. That’s a lot of points to try to answer in what is now an incredibly skinny window. So, I think I will move down to the bottom and put a permalink back up here. Keep after me if I miss any. Also, I can only try my best to give the proper Caesar’s Messiah answer.
well, a little less now!
thanks, that makes for an interesting read.
what should have been at the top of that:
I continue to think it’s unfortunate that Atwill’s work is being substantially overlooked.
I hope you enjoy it, Ichthyic.
It’s nice that the whole original pdf is downloadable for free. (I suspect Atwill doesn’t mind and hopes after reading the first edition you will choose to pay for the new edition. Personally I was well pleased with the new chapter and felt that it made the purchase well worthwhile.
I used to buy the first edition paperback several at a time when you could from Amazon for $11, and send them to people that I thought might enjoy it. Now I only have one left. Dr. Coyne got my second-to-last, I hope. PZ told me he got his and is planning to read it (maybe after his book is out). Anyhow they seem to command quite a bit more now, used.)
I found and continue to find it simply very enjoyable to read Atwill. It seems amazing to me how well it explains all of the major bits of the gospels that are widely popularly known. I never was much interested in the gospels, but I was dragged to Sunday school. I find the Atwillian interpretations are always so much more convincing than the usual ones. I can start reading at random and likely be fascinated within a page or two, and again impressed with how rich the argument is, and at how many levels it functions over.
Yes, this is the Apologetics argument I hear in discussion threads when I bring up Matthew 16:28. As Ray Moscow points out, the context shoots a big hole in that argument.
But more common than that is the “no one knows but the Father” verse. Unfortunately two verses before that, we get “This generation will not pass away before all these things [33 verses worth of End Times events described] have happened.”
Verily I saw unto thee, the inmates shall be in charge of the asylum and Harold shall be their King.
~Rev. El, 5:21
What’d’ya mean “We”, kemo sabe?
From Stockholm, 5/22 has arrived on schedule.
well done!
Nice. 🙂
That is full of epic win!
I love The Thinking Atheist.
If only! Thanks for posting that.
So why aren’t people also making fun of Jesus?
Nelson Munz to Jesus:
HA HA
Already Sunday morn here in the Far East. Rapture postponed indefinitely. Catholics already in church having Jesus for breakfast.
Well, 6:00 has come and passed. The neighborhood kids are skateboarding in the street. Nowhere do I see any signs of any ruptures, though I do understand that a volcano in Iceland has started belching.
If this is what all the excitement was about, consider me unimpressed. Couldn’t Jesus at least have had a few of his favorites do John Hurt impressions on live TV? What a letdown.
Cheers,
b&
Jeebus was speaking metaphorically when he said that.
Well, I was going to make a wisecrack about the porpoises of Jesus’s metas, but nevermind.
Instead, I’ll commit these electrons to observing that Christianity, from its very beginning, was always obsessed with the end of the world.
You see, it grew out of Rome’s conquest of Judea and the destruction of the Temple. To the Jews who embraced Christianity, the world quite literally had just ended.
All those batshit insane lunatic ravings in the Bible make a lot more sense when viewed as something akin to the sort of political commentary Charles Dodgson loved to engage in. They weren’t prophesies of what was to come nearly so much as they were hyperbolies of what they had just been through. That, and ergotism, of course.
Just as we see anti-Semitism so deeply ingrained in the very fabric of Christianity that it’s impossible to eradicate, so too do we see millennialism intimately intertwined with the mind virus. Might as well try to get Christians to stop believing in the efficacy of magic spells (so long as the gods the spells compel are from the Christian pantheon, of course).
Cheers,
b&
“speaking metaphorically” is what people always say after they’re completely wrong.
I think its pretty obvious from the way Jesus was teaching and acting, and the way Paul was teaching and acting, that they believed the world was on its to the end. Jesus pretty clearly described how he imagined the world ending. None of this “oh, well it actually means this… ”
Not when the general reading makes sense historically. Jesus speaking metaphorically only works if you think everything he said was always right. And if you believe that, then Jesus also had it in for fig trees.
He’s having a go at the flowers now! 😉
I guess the standard excuse is going to be that the bible was written in different genres, and some of it’s not meant to be taken literally. How – other than post facto – Christians are able to discriminate is something I’ve never heard a suitable explanation for.
Certainly the weirdest Rapture things I found on the internet are here:
http://www.preterism.info/articles/ktw-faith-2011jan07.htm
This sect argues that because Jesus predicted that the rapture would take place within the lifetimes of some of his listeners, he could not possibly have been wrong, and therefore the rapture MUST HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED before about 70 AD!! These guys admit there are some details that don’t make sense under this interpretation, but they are willing to accept that, rather than accept that Jesus and the Apostles (who apparently universally preached that the end was very near) were wrong.
The website (which is actually a Christian ultra-fundamentalist website) has great Bible quotes which inadvertently show that Harold Camping is just the latest in a 2000 year old line of lunatics, and all of Christianity is built on the kinds of sorry excuses that will soon appear on the FamilyRadio network. Lunacy has a long history but a short memory.
Lou
You wrote, “These guys admit there are some details that don’t make sense under this interpretation.”
That is not what the article says. It says this:
“There are certainly valid and somewhat puzzling questions regarding the circumstances surrounding the rapture”
This is because it occurred 2,000 years ago, so of course some of the circumstances may be unclear. But I did not say “some details…don’t make sense.”
You may not believe in the first-century rapture, but please quote me accurately.
Sorry if I did not convey your meaning exactly. It was not intended as an exact quote, as you can tell from the lack of quotation marks. But “puzzling” often means “doesn’t make sense”. Of course, it might depend on context. Here is the context, your Bible quotations:
“For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.”
So on your hypothesis, nobody in the whole world noticed the coming with the angels, and nobody at all noticed that they were punished or rewarded according to what they had done. This seems more than just mildly puzzling.
“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16-17, NASB throughout.)”
Nobody noticed the “shout”, the trumpet, and people rising from the dead? Again, this seems more than just mildly puzzling. But if you think these contradictions make sense, then I am sorry to have misrepresented you.
Anyway, I do appreciate your website. It is one of the best monuments to blind faith that I have ever seen.
No where at Preterism.info will you find the statement “there are some details that don’t make sense under this interpretation.”
What you will find is this: “There are certainly valid and somewhat puzzling questions regarding the circumstances surrounding the rapture.”
This is because the event occurred 2,000 years ago, so of course, some details will be unclear.
Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem within his generation. It occurred exactly as predicited 40 years later. Why then, is hard to believe the rapture he predicted also occurred?
Next time, please quote me accurately.
This was a post-diction.
I’ll give you a homework question:
What is the oldest document that is extant in which the mythical Jesus character asserts such a notion?
I’ll charge 40 pieces of silver for a each hint.
Oh – a nutter.
He could be a bolter.
We should be so lucky…
Shyly Minaret?
I’m so far outta my league.
“Reveilleation.”
!
You’re in rare form, even for you, today!
Don’t put yourself down so! I shall have my off-days, and you have had your “on” days!
Give him time.
He has to do some scholarly research in order to respond sensibly to my enquiry.
I would not expect even Christopher Hitchens to have such a factoid tucked up his sleeve!
Jeez. When are people going to learn that this whole second coming thing is just a metaphor?
…or a euphemism?
Jesus did come for a first time.
Quit the single entendres.
So this isn’t the last post
No, it is reveilleation.
How do you know that there aren’t some really, really old Jews kicking around somewhere?
“Oy vay, so when’s He gonna show up already?”
Waiting for God, OH!
Are you implying that when Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 about the “coming of the Son of Man,” that he wasn’t referring to Daniel 7 (representing how God’s people, human beings who bear his image will be vindicated over other oppressive “beastly” kingdoms), wasn’t vindicated (proven to be right) when Jesus rose from the dead and the temple and its system that he pronounced judgement on wasn’t destroyed within a generation and those who didn’t trust in him to make the kingdom come (versus the various factions of the day, Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, etc.) weren’t soundly defeated (similar to Jeremiah in his day, hence the quote about a den of robbers, quoting Jeremiah), in the very manner he said it would happen?
That quote from Jesus is only part of the reason that I’m inclined to believe he was a crackpot. It’s very annoying when people say something like “Jesus had a great message, but Christians mess it up.”
No, he DIDN’T have a great message. He most likely believed the world was going to end within his own generation, and everything he said was filtered through that ridiculous belief.
Even the “nice” things he may have said weren’t said for the sake of posterity, but for immediate advantage before the imminent end of the world.
Jesus is a fictional character.
That much is plain.
Well, I don’t necessarily disagree with that assessment either.
But it’s fun to concede he existed and then still tear apart Christian belief in him. 🙂
Haven’t you heard of the “Wandering Jew”?
The story of the transfiguration was worked in just after this statement (Matthew 17) as an explanation for why Jesus never showed back up.
Quite.
And in common with much (all?) of Christian exegesis, it is self-serving & unbelievably juvenile bollocks, that would not convince a retarded 6 week-old planarian worm.
Not only that, it is distilled xenophobic poison, to add insult to fantasy.
Prof. Coyne may know if a 6 week-old planarian worm is juvenile, or senile.
I freely confess that I do not.
But it is officially the end of the world, so it doesn’t matter much.
“There be some standing here” is not the proper translation of that text. But you’re not going to care or engage in the discussion surrounding this issue in an honest way, so it doesn’t even matter.
My translation (from the original Greek) is:
“There are some standing here who will in no way will taste of death until they see the son of man coming in ‘His’ kingdom.”
How does that substantially vary from Prof. Coynes’ contribution?
(Apart form one word).
What might be your learned translation, pray tell?
You cannot dismiss the passage without proffering a superior interpretation, yet pretend to retain your scholarship.
I am prepared to engage you in the discussion, even should Prof. Coyne deign it to be a waste of his valuable effort.
“Leave him Michael, he not worth it!” He is another god botherer – obviously they are on the prowl today.
I am a an anti-theist schadenfreude sado-masochist.
I gain considerable pleasure from observing theists squirm under which the pressure that the heavy hand of logic quashes their barely thought-out and retarded responses.
It is a kind of wine-sport, if you get the Catholic implication.
I s’pose I should ‘get a life’, but I’ve already had a bloody good one! (Or two. See your warranty for details.)
No, the most accurate rendering is “this generation”. “some standing here” is a very inaccurate and deceptive rendering. It is a very ambiguous statement. I’m not going to engage with your ad hominem attacks, but to be clear I don’t even believe in the “rapture”.
oh, and there’s no squirming here, my friend. You couldn’t do that to me.
Even after you discovered that you were referring to the wrong passage?
Or was that squirming courtesy of some other source?
I assumed he was referring to the “this generation” passage because I wouldn’t expect him to be talking about “some standing here”, a completely different saying which has never academically or traditionally been interpreted to refer to the second coming. My error was a result of the context in which the poster intended the passage to be read.
Chris, you’re getting your parallel sayings mixed up. Matthew 16:28 does not say “generation”. It says “some here standing”.
In reading this post, I did not notice that he was quoting Matthew 16.28. That’s my fault. But considering Matthew 16, this has nothing to do with the “second coming” or “rapture”. If you look at the Gospel of Mark (the first gospel written, which was a source for both Matthew and Luke), you see this same statement appear four chapters before “this generation”. These are two different statements, and “some standing here” occurs in an obviously different context. Scholars posit at least six different interpretations, and the least likely understanding is that which pertains to a “second coming” given its context. I was looking at the wrong passage, but you’re completely wrong on the context. (The MOST likely interpretation, in my mind, concerns the transfiguration; you’ll notice that the transfiguration story comes right after this statement in both Matthew and Mark.) Also, to argue for another point of view, make sure you look at John 8.52 for the phrase “taste death”. I promise I’m not here to troll. I’m not going to try to convert you to anything, either. I just think it’s important to look at these things in an honest way.
Chris (from above):
Rather, it looks like you commented just to accuse Dr. Coyne or other commentors of dishonesty. But you were wrong.
And it does seem like Jesus is referring to a “coming” (second or otherwise) in Matthew 16, because he plainly said so.
Chris Butson, I accept your clear apology for your slight against my biblical scholarship.
It is not often that one reads of a Christian apologising in such a forthright manner.
Ray- It still is serious dishonesty! My being wrong has nothing to do with that point. You commit a serious logical fallacy to think so.
Again, You have to be careful not to impose your own meaning onto this passage. Remember that this is a separate saying from “this generation” (which explicitly refers to the second coming. It is an ambiguous statement. This is what Michael Wilkins (Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary;Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University) had to say about this passage:
“Some of the Twelve who were standing there with Jesus in Caesarea Philippi would live to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This predicted event has been variously interpreted as referring to: (1) Jesus’ transfiguration (17:1–8); (2) his resurrection; (3) the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost; (4) the spread of the kingdom through the preaching of the early church; (5) the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in a.d. 70; or (6) the second coming and final establishment of the kingdom. The immediate context seems to indicate the first view, the transfiguration, which immediately follows (see also Mark 9:2–10; Luke 9:28–36). There, “some” of Jesus’ disciples “saw” what Jesus will be like when he comes in the power of his kingdom. This interpretation is also supported by 2 Pet. 1:16–18, where Peter equates Jesus’ “glory” with his transfiguration, of which Peter was an eyewitness. At the same time, interpretations (2), (3), and (4) are also quite possible, for they are all instances where Jesus “came” in the powerful advance of his kingdom, which was partially but not yet fully realized. Some interpreters think that Jesus is more generally speaking of many or all of the events in views (2) through (4). View (5) is less persuasive because the judgment on Jerusalem does not reflect the positive growth of the kingdom…”
Again, I (and most biblical scholars, people who are certainly much more intelligent than me) find the 6th view to be the least likely. Also, (again) in the Christian worldview, believers in Jesus Christ do “not taste death” in the deepest of ways (John 8.52, Hebrews 2.9).
Chris, it’s you who brought up the “generation” parallel, confusing it with the one we were discussing.
And it’s the author of Matthew 16:27-28 who put the idea of an imminent “coming” into Jesus’ mouth, not us. Your accusation of dishonesty was misplaced.
Ray, did I miss something? Is this post not trying to impose the “rapture” meaning to Matthew 16? And I pointed out the parallel to show that one pertains to a second coming, while the other doesn’t. If you would seriously read what I have written and look at the issue in an honest way, you would see this. But you are obviously not interested in that.
I like the poster here:
http://religionpoisons.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/the-end-of-the-world/
I had a plague of frog.
Does that count?
One frog does not constitute a “plague.”
“One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy.” — some old bloke.
🙂
OK, I’ll admit I had to Google that. Very old bloke.
So old that he was born in Googol BC?
The universe was not born in Googol BC.
You are entirely correct.
And I only say that once in a µEpoch.
Uncle!!
Pax.
Last word!
(Yeah, right…)
One frog does not constitute a “plague.”
oh yeah?
Not content to be merely Ichthyic, you are now a Ranaphile?
Ichs and Herps, baby!
Copeia
Any chance that they produce Copepodcasts?
like this?
But, ouch! Not even the same phyla…
(More likely, they produce core-data…)
Uh…my mouth looks like Jimmy’s, now…
:D!
Funny, I’ve often thought of frogs as “mouths with legs,” too. I’ve imagined being prey-sized and looking up at that huge grin…
Must. Restrain. from.. Catholic preist. argh. References.
I read somewhere that an employee at Camping’s Family Radio estimated that around 80% of her fellow employees rejected the idea of a May 21st rapture. I hope that not too many people made terrible life or financial decisions based on this silly prediction. This one 60 year-old guy in New York got rid of 140,000$ in life-savings to pay for ads. Poor delusional soul.
What is his phone number?
A disappointed racoon
Today is another great day in the Cenozoic Era.:-)
See, what really happened is that Camping was just working with the FEC to create a “Rapture Warning System”.
I just saw this while watching Gilligan’s Island:
*BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*
“The preceding was a test of the emergency Rapture system.
This was only a test.
Religious authorities have developed this test to keep you informed in case of actual Rapture.
If this had been an actual Rapture, you would have been instructed to tune to one of the FamilyRadio.com stations in your area for further information.”
so see? that’s why the rapture didn’t happen, this was only to establish the warning system!
Oh my– this has to be one of the best threads ever:-)) Half the time, I can’t be bothered to comment–just sit here laffing.
We trimmed toenails during the…non-event.
I’m responding down here to replies to my comments in comment 4, since it is just too hard to squeeze into the narrow window for replies to replies to replies.
Chris Butson:
“That’s certainly an interesting way to look at it, but the traditional understanding is that calling your leader the “son of God” was a denial of the deity of the emperor, a rejection of his authority. Also, don’t forget that when Jesus made the statement “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”, he finished with “and to God the things that are God’s.” This is not an affirmation of the power of Rome, but rather a call not to refuse to pay taxes. ”
Paul Gnuman reply:
Atwill argues that it’s a joke because Caesar and God are the same person here. Anyhow if the Judeans had been paying their taxes there would have been much less of a problem. But, it was an affront to Caesar that the Jews refused to worship him, even on pain of death (Josephus tells us) so part of the purpose of Christianity was to get the Jews to worship Caesar without recognizing it.
Chris Butson:
“It was much more important to focus on what they called “the kingdom of Heaven”. (On a related note, anytime Jesus is recorded as talking about money, he’s usually pretty negative. He saw it as a means to an end, rather than the end itself.)”
I don’t think this is a major point so I think I will let it be.
Chris Butson:
“The story of Herod killing children in an attempt to destroy Jesus as a child doesn’t seem to cast Rome in a very favorable light.”
It was necessary in the scheme of things to set Jesus up as a Moses-like character. I think this parallel between the gospels and the OT is accepted by scholars. Herod was probably the only reasonable candidate for ordering the hits. Anyhow, Herod is not Caesar, only one of His imperfect servants, and a Judean one at that.
Chris Butson:
“Also, when Christ is before Pilate it sounds more like he is hesitant to put him to death because it is an issue that doesn’t concern him. It seems he didn’t want to crucify a religious nut whose major message was peace. He had bigger problems; consider the zealots. Pilate asks “Am I a Jew?”; he didn’t want to deal with it.
It seems pretty defiant to me when Jesus says to Pilate “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above…” ”
I think there is more to Pilate’s hestitation than that. There is a lot of exposition about in the book. When I watched Mel Gibson’s movie I thought the Atwillian point comes across quite well.
Chris Butson:
“I don’t know. I will definitely check out Atwill.”
That’s very open-minded of you and I hope it turns out to be worth your while.
It might be worth trying to explain here that in the Caesar’s Messiah universe, Jesus is not intended to be directly identified with Titus. Rather, he is a false messiah who presages Titus the true messiah. Therefore not everything he says is exactly the Roman line.
Absolutely. This idea is very interesting, though I’m not completely convinced quite yet that Atwill is on to something. It doesn’t seem to land on the side of conservatism in relation to the historical evidence surrounding these issues, as is the problem with most “conspiracy” theories. One preliminary concern for me is that if Josephus constructed the gospels, then they ought be much more consistent in the minor details (chronology, reports of the empty tomb, etc.). The gospels all hold the qualities of most oral traditions.
At any rate, I downloaded the 1st edition and intend to read it on my kindle over the next week (hopefully I will have the time). I looked at your website, and while it seems the content is mostly over my head, is that a good place to reach you for follow-up questions on this stuff? Thanks for being mostly agreeable in this discussion rather than falling back on ad hominem attacks (like most bloggers tend to do).
Chris, is that you looking at my blogger page from Monroe, Michigan? (It gets so little traffic I can pretty much know.)
I’m from near there (not now but originally) and I know a lot of people from there. My brother used to live in Monroe. Did you ever hear of Custer’s Last Band? They were a group in the early 70s, late 60s even maybe. I know all those guys well.
You’re welcome to email me through my blogger page if you like.
If you have a difficult question though you should probably just ask Joe Atwill directly. You can email him through his website. He will probably then tell you to call him directly as he did with me.
Anyhow I’m just somebody who read it and found it very convincing and important. I’m not particularly an expert. I read it originally 5 years ago and try to refresh on it here and there, but haven’t systematically studied it so far. My spare time is pretty tied up with my physics hobby project as you have now seen. It takes a lot of effort to get the physicists’ attention when you don’t even have any physics degrees, ha ha.
I started a thread about Caesar’s Messiah in 2007 on Iron Chariots wiki here: http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=3495&sid=67d4b05c944b9b3cb2a67c72f9a92c76
That would be a nice place to post your thoughts if you like. The only catch is that it may take a while to get registered over there. For a while I guess nobody was mainaining the forum it but now it seems to be getting some new blood.
Also there are some interviews with Atwill on youtube, here’s one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCNJf83bqjs&feature=related
There’s a good long audio interview by Infidelguy, somewhere, and a sort of a debate show there between Atwill and Robert Price. I like the Infidelguy interview but the debate was not the greatest.
I am indeed from Monroe! I’ve lived here most of my life. I have not heard of Custer’s Last Band, but I’m going to do some looking around to see what I can find out. If they were from Monroe, they must have been great. I’m actually actively engaged playing music all over Monroe county.
Your site makes me want to brush up on my physics. Regarding Atwill, I probably will be emailing you, just to see what I can learn. Thanks for the links 🙂
I googled for traces of Custer’s Last Band and there is very little trace of the original from-Monroe band although there appear to be some others now using the name.
They were a really good jug band and I always enjoyed seeing them. They told really funny stories and sang some funny songs and they were also very good musically. Then some of them got together with a band my brother was in and formed another band, that eventually got signed with MCA although they never got much further. They had one semi-hit single and recorded one album that didn’t sell very well. One of the guys in that band was this guy:
http://www.tomtreece.com/
who wrote this book
http://www.amazon.com/But-what-know-Vol-Treece/dp/1604773413/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306263662&sr=1-3
and I think is still a columnist with the Monroe paper. Anyhow you might know him because he still appears to have a band except now he is doing Christian rock it appears.
I’m having a hard time remembering if he was in CLB or whether he came along separately. The lead singer of CLB was Jack whose family business was a well-known Monroe electrical contractor but I can’t find it on google so it must be gone now. Anyhow Tom T is close friends with my brother and I’m sure he’d remember me too although it’s been a really long time – at least 30 years – since we’ve spoken.
In case anybody is still reading this, they might be interested to know, the town of Monroe has a statue of Custer downtown, although Custer was not from there. His wife was from there!
Interesting. I didn’t mean to put a buy-now type of link there, just a link to the book so Chris could see who I was talking about. Sorry about that.
It’s not showing now, so maybe you got edited, but that’s happened to me, too. Annoying, eh? I assume it was an Amazon link…
Yes, it says awaiting moderation. Well that link was not essential so here is the post sans amazon link:
I googled for traces of Custer’s Last Band and there is very little trace of the original from-Monroe band although there appear to be some others now using the name.
They were a really good jug band and I always enjoyed seeing them. They told really funny stories and sang some funny songs and they were also very good musically. Then some of them got together with a band my brother was in and formed another band, that eventually got signed with MCA although they never got much further. They had one semi-hit single and recorded one album that didn’t sell very well. One of the guys in that band was this guy:
http://www.tomtreece.com/
who wrote a book, “But what do I know? Vol. 1” and I think is still a columnist with the Monroe paper. Anyhow you might know him because he still appears to have a band except now he is doing Christian rock it appears.
I’m having a hard time remembering if he was in CLB or whether he came along separately. The lead singer of CLB was Jack whose family business was a well-known Monroe electrical contractor but I can’t find it on google so it must be gone now. Anyhow Tom T is close friends with my brother and I’m sure he’d remember me too although it’s been a really long time – at least 30 years – since we’ve spoken.
In case anybody is still reading this, they might be interested to know, the town of Monroe has a statue of Custer downtown, although Custer was not from there. His wife was from there!
Yes, I know Tom quite well! He’s a great guy. Not my style of music, for sure, but he’s a wonderful guy. Kind of a living legend around here. haha He’s full of stories, for sure!
I actually already own that book, too! What a crazy connected world. I also bought a shirt that says “But what do I know?” across the front. It all went to support the pho phong school in Vietnam he helped build, something which seems like quite a great act on his part.
Also, a fun fact re: Custer, my fiance works at First Presbyterian Church which is where Custer got married.
Chris, that is amazing.
Last time I was in Detroit visiting my mom I saw that book on the coffee table, which was why I knew of its existence. That’s very selfless of Tom to dedicate proceeds to building a school. I always thought he was a sweet guy, and he never said a harsh word to me, and I was usually being a pest hanging around backstage at their concerts. So tell him hi for me and he will probably say, “You mean Ken’s brother?”
I’m thinking now though he was not part of CLB but he can tell you for sure. I can remember Jack, Bob, and Tom, but not sure who else was in them. Tom died prematurely of a cerebral hemorrhage, sadly, probably in the late 70s or early 80s. Tom and Bob were brothers. Bob (“Catfish”) used to play solo in Ann Arbor at Mr Flood’s Party, fairly regularly, while I was in college. That place closed as soon as the drinking age in Michigan went back to 21 from 18. The drinking age in Michigan was 18 exactly during the period when I was 18-21 ha ha.
Anyhow don’t feel obligated to attack his religiosity on my account but of course if he comes on here everybody gets the same treatment no exceptions, ha ha. But there’s no need to invite him over here. Seriously, seeking out an individual who’s minding their own business, and attacking their religious beliefs is not what anybody here is about. We just don’t pull punches when religious assertions are made directly to us or in the public sphere. If you hang around here or other “new” atheist sites long enough, you will see that we actually do it out of respect for everyone, and a compassionate belief that ultimately everyone is happier if they can be free of unsupportable, irrational, and divisive beliefs.
Microraptor:
“In addition to what Chris says:
The Romans were very hostile to early Christians. It doesn’t really make sense that they’d try making a “Rome friendly” version of Judaism only to the persecute it.”
Paul Gnuman:
The Atwillian answer is that the very earliest alleged Christian persecutions, when actual, were against the messianic Jews. Certainly a great many rebels from Judea were persecuted. Christianity appropriated the actual early persecutions of the Jews. Later on the Flavians lost power so it’s possible their family religion fell out of favor. There’s some contention that there were widespread Christiann persecutiuons under Domitian, which might be a problem, but it doesn’t seem to be all that well established, so far as I can tell reading on wikipedia.
Various people have argued for a Roman origin of Christianity, and as a replacement religion for Judaism, prior to and independently of Atwill, I think it’s important to recognize. The thing that Atwill discovered that makes his argument unrefutable (I believe) is the recognition of the parallels between Josephus and the canonical gospels. There are too many of them, they are too rich, and they are too coherently ordered to not be deliberately placed with the intention of revealing who were the real authors of Christianity.
Chris Butson:
“One more thing re: your statement about the Torah as the fig tree; this is usually considered a statement against the Jewish authorities, not the Torah itself. Recall that the “cleansing” of the temple takes place immediately after the cursing of the fig tree in Mark’s gospel. Also, Christ said “Don’t assume I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them”.”
Paul Gnuman:
I was taking the fig tree symbolizing the Torah as symbolizing Judaism in a broad sense. Also, certainly the Flavians hated the Jewish authorities and particularly the Zealots and Sicarii who instigated the rebellion. So I would say the conventional interpretation is not inconsistent with the CM interpretation.
One of the parallels between Josephus and the gospels is the demoniac of Gadara. Atwill relates the demoniac to an episode in Josephus describing a rebel ambush of the Romans at the same location where Jesus encounters the demoniac. A lot of rebels end up drowning, and a lot are captured. What’s really fascinating though is how Josephus describes the rebel leader John as corrupting thousands with his evil ideas. The language used by Josephus is quite evocative of the situation of the demoniac where thousands of demons spring from one head. So, the Flavians were happy to lay the primary blame for the rebellion at the feet of a few rebel leaders.
Another fascinating bit about this story is that the rebel leader at Gadara is named John, who is eventually captured and taken alive and imprisoned but not put to death. Atwill argues, the demoniac of Gadara represents John the rebel leader, and that g John is written in his name. The demoniac, after being divested of his demons, is said to have gone to the Decapolis to proclaim the miracles of Jesus. (The other demoniac represents the second major rebel leader of BJ, who is eventually captured and taken to Rome for execution.)