[A previous comment that I would like to expand] "When you symbolically eat someone's flesh and drink his blood, that is symbolic of cannibalism, regardless of how many Christian apologists refuse to see it." Then, by such "logic", if "a man... shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh" as per Genesis 2:24, does that mean this passage is "symbolic of hermaphroditism"? [Edit]What people who make such an accusation that the Eucharist represents symbolic cannibalism fail to understand is that symbolism can represent more than just one level. For example, while many have said that the American flag is a symbol of the United States, I have yet to find a single instance when this refers to physical territory, but to its peoples and their government, culture, values, etc. Likewise, although the bread and wine represent the flesh and blood of Jesus, the "flesh and blood" are symbolic of something else as well that is expressed in physical terms because eating and drinking are physical activities.

"Atwill doesn't argue the new religion arose primarily in Judea...." Considering its alleged Jewish origin, don't you think that would strike the average Jew (or pretty much anyone else, for that matter) as a wee bit suspicious? "No cannibalism in the Eucharist? You have got to be kidding me." Not at all, but then again, I've got practically every Christian throughout the ages who's addressed the issue of whether communion represents cannibalism on my side (even the RCC, who's doctrine of transubstantation is probably the most literal rendering of the applicable texts). "If you don't see a connection between eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood, and cannibalism, then you certainly shouldn't waste your time reading further." I don't know what translations you might have read, but in every one that I'm familiar with, Jesus doesn't cut off one of his fingers and passes it around the table for the apostles to gnaw on or opens up a vein for them to drink from, which leads me to suspect that perhaps, maybe, possibly, he might be speaking symbolically. Any overtones of cannibalism (i.e., the actual eating of human flesh and/or blood) are completely missing from the narratives.

"while an illiterate preacher with a few illiterate disciples establishing one is perfectly reasonable...." Why would they have to be illiterate? But even if they were, they still would have an advantage over an alleged Flavian-inspired religion: first, the roots of the Christian movement would have been firmly established in Israel contemporaneously rather than elsewhere ~40-60 years later; and, second, enough people during that time would have heard of a Jesus son of Joseph who claimed to be the messiah (whether they believed in him or not) that the reports of such a person could not be lightly dismissed as a latter invention. "You think a Roman imperial family, with a large bureacracy dedicated to establishing religions, couldn't possibly have succeeded in establishibng one...." It's not a question of having the resources to do so, but whether, anyone, especially a Jew, would have believed a religion centered on a man that (according to the New Testament documents) lived ~40-60 years ago at the time and claimed to have been the long awaited Messiah, yet no one would have heard of him (or any of his alleged disciples) until the Flavians. "Does the lack of success of a plan imply with certainty a plan never existed, then, in what passes for logic in your mind?" No, it doesn't, but this has nothing to do with anything I wrote. The question isn't whether or not the plan succeeded, but whether it had any chance of succeeding. In other words, if the New Testament had been a Flavian invention, the nascent Christian religion would have died stillborn rather than rapidly blossoming into the dominant Roman religion.

"Well now that you've admitted you haven't actually read it...." At least I've skimmed through the intro and 1st chapter and read the 2+3 chapters before deciding that I have seen nothing that's convinced me that the rest is worth reading immediately, especially considering the extreme improbability that even a single Jew would suddenly accept a messiah when he or she had never heard of a pacifistic Jesus son of Joseph claiming to be the Messiah despite New Testament portraying Israel (as well as other areas of the Roman Empire) as a hotbed of Christian evangelism. As for the parts that I have read, all I've seen is a rehashing of the old "there's something mysterious about passage 'x' in the Bible/New Testament, therefore there must be a reason for it that supports my thesis" argument and a few convoluted attempts at parallels buttressed by some commonplace similarities. E.g., "Mary" was perhaps the most common female name at the time, baking was probably the most common way of cooking food- especially during most sieges, and people, especially women, have often been described as being pierced to their souls during hardships, with the added difficulty that one was with famine and the other with a sword. Yes, I know that Atwill could probably try to get around this (although he appears to totally ignore it in the book) by claiming that since the famine was caused by the "sword" (warfare), that it is a conceptual parallel, but that simply begs the question by assuming one exists and then using an esoteric interpretation to prove that conceptual parallels exist. As a related point: just what distinguishes a "conceptual parallel" or "prosaic interpretation" from a contrived one? "I trust them to judge for themselves far more than I would trust some Christian to provide an honest appraisal of it, even if said Christian had read it." Nice to see that you're maintaining your objectivity.

"I'm here to convince freethinkers...." If they really are freethinkers (as in people who think freely), shouldn't they be aware of (at least potential) problems with Atwill's hypothesis, rather than blindly accepting what he says as gospel truth? "I believe that if all non-believing people were acquainted with it, it would become the conventional wisdom...." I have little doubt that it find some adherents. The question, however, should be whether it deserves to become the conventional wisdom. "I can't imagine why you or anyone would waste so much time in opposition unless you are truly concerned it might be true." Ooh, a false dilemma (either I wouldn't waste my time or I must be concerned it might true) on top of an attempted psychological analysis. If I wanted to play this game, I could just as well respond that you wouldn't waste your time trying to defend the book unless you might be concerned it was wrong. Instead, maybe I'm trying to save "freethinkers" and atheists a little embarrassment (after all, there's probably some out there who still think that the Da Vinci Code and/or the Five Gospels is/are a serious threat to orthodoxy) from trying to defend a thesis that is based on little more than convoluted parallels and commonplace similarities and thus while it may look good on the surface, falters when subjected to closer scrutiny.

"Is there any cannibalism involved in your example, Pherguvsel?" No, but there's none involved in the Eucharist either. So if Josephus is spoofing anything here, it is a false accusation (whether he recognizes it or not) of the communion being cannibalism. Even so, there are still parallels as strong, if not stronger, between these two passages than those mentioned by Atwill. And I somehow recall someone mentioning that "Literary parallels certainly do not need to be exact or 'literal'." Besides, Josephus turning the episode into an account of cannibalism (as well as making the "harlots" in the original into an eminent woman) would only emphasize the black comedy of his piece- or is it only Atwill that can get away with such (faulty) reasoning? "Other clues support that the Josephus story intends the child as a Passover sacrifice in accordance with all ritual requirements." Besides being baked (which can be seen as common, since there were only a limited number of methods available at the time and the scarcity of water during most sieges would have made one of them- boiling- even less likely), just what other ritual requirement does the child fulfill? Cooked with entrails? Possibly, although the passage does not directly state this. Cooked with bitter herbs or during the Passover? Doubtful. Blood spread over the doorposts? Even less likely given the seeming surprise on the part of the seditious. Sacrificial meaning attached to death? None indicated. One simply does not have a passover lamb without these elements. And yet again, Atwill tries to play it both ways in this chapter: if it truly was an "age in which allegory was regarded as a science [and e]ducated readers were expected to be able to understand another meaning within religious and historical literature", how does he explain that there are no records of anyone figuring out and exposing the New Testament as fraudulent, especially considering that the documents would have come out of nowhere and were about a group of people no one would have heard of? "If you could be bothered to read the book...." I'm slowly in the process of doing so, but fortunately have more important things to do with my time. Every once in awhile, though, I can use a good laugh.

"For anyone who does not believe in the make-believe" This is mere poisoning of the well, unworthy of debate. "the CM thesis is a far simpler explanation of how Christianity arose so successfully" On the contrary, it can offer no rational explanation of how anyone could have convinced a typical Jew (who would have known nothing of an alleged Jesus son of Joseph who claimed to be the messiah despite having lived in an area that the New Testament claims was being heavily evangelized by his disciples) to believe in it in the first place. Or why there is no record of any of Falavian's or Christianity's early foes figuring out the clues, especially since they're considered to be so obvious.

"It was the end of their world, certainly." The same could be said about any large battle in which a large number of people are killed. This is simply an esoteric reading unsupported by the text, leaving nothing but one's imagination to connect it to the encircling of Jerusalem or the destruction of the temple. And that still doesn't answer the objection that "anomia" refers to a spiritual deficiency rather than rebellion against the government or that Jesus portrays the Son of Man (singular) as being favorably disposed to his (Jesus') followers, yet calls the people (plural) who will encircle Jerusalem and destroy the temple "thine enemies". "That there is a surface and naive interpretation of the story as well as a cynical and prosaic one is entirely in keeping with the CM thesis." That it is consistent means nothing to anyone who doesn't first accept that there are both surface and prosaic interpretations (to the degree that Atwill claims there are) rather than arbitrary and esoteric readings combined with commonplace coincidences. For example, why is the episode of "cannibal Mary" not a spoof of 1 Kings 3:16-28 (which also has a mother killing her child and a decision to cut a child in half) rather than (or as well as) the Eucharist? Furthermore, Atwill offers no examples where typology was used to disguise the identity of one person as another rather than the two people being compared being considered as distinct and different personages.

(continued from the following post) "those who practice lawlessness" The word translated as "lawlessness" here is "anomia" and is used only three other times by Jesus in the New Testament, all of them in the Gospel of Matthew (7:23, 32:28, and 24:12) and all of them refering to a spiritual deficiency (i.e., those that work iniquity are people who don't do the will of the Father; Pharisees who outwardly appear righteous to men, but within [and note the "within"] are full of hypocrisy and iniquity; iniquity being the cause of the love of many to wax cold) rather than legal standing. If you're going to do word study in the future, you might want to consider how a word is used, rather than merely how it is translated. "He sets no allowances for any particular laws...." In a high context culture, he wouldn't have to because such allowances would already be understood by his audience, even if it were legislative laws instead of religious laws (i.e., the Law of Moses) that he was talking about.

"Jesus says elsewhere that his followers should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, so this only a consistent interpretation of the term lawbreakers." You're going to have to cite more than just one verse (and a partial one at that, as he also states that his followers should render unto God that which is God's, thus indicating that the two sets of duties are seperate and therefore might possibly conflict) before establishing a "consistent interpretation". Furthermore, the only application given by the verse is to the paying of tribute, not breaking the law in general. "The passage continues:" If we're going to discuss the passage, why not throw in verse 41 for good measure: "As therefore the tares are GATHERED AND BURNED in the fire [just like 'them which do iniquity' are gathered by the angels sent by the Son of Man and 'cast... in a furnace of fire']; so shall it be IN THE END OF THE WORLD"? A bit of a stretch to conflate the actions of the Son of Man which occur "in the end of the world" with those that "thine enemies" will do before this present generation shall pass away. "Also, it is essential to note, Jesus says it'll all happen while some present are still living." Except the "Son of Man" passage which you're trying to connect this to occurs "in the end of the world". "When we take the two passages, one from Luke and one from Mathew, we see that Flavius Titus is the unique individual who fulfilled both." Considering that we haven't reached "in the end of the world" yet, how could Flavius Titus have possibly fulfilled such a requirement? Also, "the son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20), "shall... be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40), "shall be betrayed into the hands of men" (Matthew 17:22), "shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death" (Matthew 20:18), was "betrayed to be crucified", "must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31)... a whole litany of things which weren't applicable to Flavius Titus. Worse, simply taking a verse from here and there and combining them in ways that they were not clearly meant to be combined (while ignoring verses like Matthew 13:40 that pose problems to such an endeavor) is not the proper way to interpret any work, including the New Testament. "those who practice lawlessness" The word translated as "lawlessness" here is "anomia" and is used only three other times by Jesus in the New Testament, all of them in the Gospel of Matthew (7:23, 32:28, and 24:12) and all of them refering to a spiritual deficiency (i.e., those that work iniquity are people who don't do the will of the Father; Pharisees who outwardly appear righteous to men, but within [and note the "within"] are full of hypocrisy and iniquity; iniquity being the cause of the love of many to wax cold) rather than legal standing. If you're going to do word study in the future, you might want to consider how a word is used, rather than merely how it is translated. "He sets no allowances for any particular laws...." In a high context culture, he wouldn't have to because such allowances would already be understood by his audience, even if it were legislative laws instead of religious laws (i.e., the Law of Moses) that he was talking about.

"Sounds like the Son of Man means serious business to me!" List of things that Jesus says the Son of Man will do in Matthew 13:37,41-42: 1) sew the good seed; and, 2) send out his angels. Now, let me draw your attention to items that are noticeably absent from the above list: 1) encircle Jerusalem; and, 2) destroy the temple. Therefore, nothing in this passage refutes my contention that Atwill fails to "to mention the verse in which Jesus is supposed to have 'predicted that a Son of Man would... encircle Jerusalem' or 'destroy the temple'" in any way or manner... and it is my strong suspicion that he simply made it up to support his hypothesis. Furthermore, the "Son of Man" as portrayed by Jesus appears to be for his supporters, whereas he clearly identifies the persons who will encircle Jerusalem and destroy the temple as "thy foes". "I don't understand what you are trying to get at here." My point is that I don't think that Atwill has fully explored the implications of his hypothesis. If, as he claims, the Flavians created Christianity around 70-90 AD, then no one, not even a single Jew, would have heard the claim that Jesus was the Messiah before then- despite New Testament claims that his disciples had been heavily proselytizing both Jewish and Gentile lands for ~40-60 years. On top of that, no one would have heard of any of the alleged disciples either. Don't you think that most Jews might be a wee bit suspicious of claims that a man they never heard of is not only the Messiah, but, contrary to their expectations, a pacifistic one as well, all based on documents that no one had ever heard of either? Quite the opposite, a more realistic response to the claim that Jesus, son of Joseph, was the Messiah would have been "Jesus (as well as just about every person mentioned in the New Testament) who?" rather than "I believe". "Literary parallels certainly do not need to be exact or 'literal'." No, but they DO have to be, in some manner, parallel. If it was Josephus' intention to somehow portray the Roman soldiers as fishing for men, he could have easily have done so, even without mentioning fishing specifically.

"Atwill argues that in addition to the intelligentsia of the time, the Flavians wanted posterity to appreciate their feat, as well." Which fails to explain how he managed to add enough of these clues for the intelligentsia and posterity to figure out, yet completely fool some of the Jews. This underscores the central problem with his hypothesis: it's entirely a "top-down" operation. If the Flavians "created" Christianity, then no one would have heard of Jesus being the Messiah in the approximately 40-60 year span between his "alleged" death and his "introduction" to the Jews, despite the New Testament claims of fervent missionary activity to spread this very message not only there, but throughout the Roman empire. Yet one day,. Jewish authorities (probably with known sympathies to the Roman government) appeared with documents containing clues to their inauthenticity and portraying a pacifistic Messiah who no one would have heard about and who was the complete opposite of what they were expecting and this is supposed to be enough to convince people. Compared to this, a man coming back to life is very believable. "that they did it is beyond doubt because of the many clues that are clearly deliberately placed. I mentioned this previously but it's so important I will again, there are time cues in separate gospels in the story of the empty tomb, that along with the events and contradictions in the number of people present, make the straight reading logically impossible." Except there's nothing that differentiates them from other accounts based on testimony from various eyewitnesses, which almost have some minor discrepancies on trivial detail or literary narratives which appear in biographical works.

"Well there's this on pages 13-14: And when He was now getting near Jerusalem . . . He came into full view of the city, He wept aloud over it, and exclaimed, For the time is coming upon thee when thy foes...." Unless my eyes (or logic) fail me here, "THY FOES" would not include a SON OF MAN, who the Gospels seem to portray as favorably disposed to Jesus' followers. "I forgot momentarily how the game works." Atwill's game seems to work however he says it works. There always seems to be a "way out" to explain anything that doesn't fit neatly into his paradigm. This example simply illustrates the point: if something like spears isn't mentioned, then it's because the authors wanted to "obscure the parallels". "Clearly though, the Romans had plenty of spears...." Which is wholly and completely irrelevant to whether Josephus is attempting to portray them as "fishing for men" (which an actual literary parallel would require) or whether Atwill has let his imagination run away from him.

"Also, you're comparing two generals, so it shouldn't be considered surprising that many parallelisms are to be found..." And Atwill is considering two 1st century leaders. Thus, one might find it much more compelling to find parallels between the two people who are more separated in time and place. "As Atwill reveals, the contradictory bits show the truly logical reader that the surface interpretation is actually an erroneous one." But if it were so important, as you and Atwill imply, to the Flavians to get the Jewish rebels to accept a pacifistic messiah, then why would they add clues that might tip them off that they were being hoaxed? One would think that most Jews would have been knowledgeable enough about the wars that if the connections were so obvious, they would have seen the parallels between Titus' alleged "fishing for men" and Jesus' "fishers of men" (on the shores of the Galilee even!).