conspiracy theory

[achilles12604]

I was giving some thought to the athiest viewpoint here. I was considering in my mind if my religious bias had blinded me to something obvious. Was this theory more likely than my current one? After reading my following post please tell me :

1) If this theory fits better than the theory that it is more or less true and accurate.
2) WHY one theory is better than the other.
3) What other theories could be possible?
4) Why those theories should be considered.

The theory: The earliest Christians, Paul, James, and the apostles at the least, perhaps more unnamed men, made up Christianity or borrowed ideas from other religions to make up their own. Then they pushed it as truth onto the unknowing masses and gathered a following.



For this theory to be truth, first there must be a why.

Why would these men want to construct a religion of their own which would be considered totally evil by most of the people they were reaching at first? In addition to this, their new religion would be directly against their current beliefs, against the beliefs of their families and society, and would have the end result of excommunicating them from their friends and support structure.

What reason could so many men have for creating something completely out of nothing, which would be so devestating to themselves, physically, financially, and socially?

To this atheists have replied, "How do you know that this is what happened? How can you proove that the early christian's suffered?"

To answer this one simply needs to read Jewish writings or Roman historians. Pliny the younger wrote that every time he discovered Christians, he tourtured and murdered them. Not some of the time. EVERY TIME. The Jewish Pharasee's like Saul, before he converted, were imprisoning Christians. To the Jews, these believers were a mutation of their beliefs. The Talmud has some very strong words about the Christian's. Josephus writes of them being stoned. If any athiest wishes to present the case that Christian's were not persecuted, they must first deal with history.

The next step for validating the conspiracy theory, after determining why these men would have done this, is to see if the facts fit. In other words, does history point to a conspiracy, or truth?

Extra-biblical writings of Jesus :

At first this subject seems to point in great favor of the conspiracy theory. Outside of the bible and writings of the conspirators, there is little support. However, when certain things are taken into consideration, this becomes less and less of a problem. For example, almost all of the writings of this time period were about rulers, wars, conquering countries and other such important things. So should we have expected to see a great deal of writing about a poor man from a really small town in a clountry being ruled by a foreign power? Not really. In fact we should have NOTHING written about him ever. Especially since he never existed.

But we do. We have the writings of a contemporary historian, Josephus. Although his writings are universally thought to have been altered by later Christians, the core of one passage concerning Jesus is thought to be genuine and a second passage is thought to be entirely genuine by most scholars. In addition to this we have Jewish Historians (writers of the Talmud) who by reviewing history determined that a man named Jesus was a magician and was killed by authorities by hanging on a tree.

This is very impressive for a poor tradesman, and this is assuming he even existed. The conspiracy theory doesn't even allow for a man named Jesus at all. Remember that the theory is that these men constructed all of their ideas from other ancient religions. Hence Jesus should have never even formed much less have been refered to by outside sources. This does not boad well for a conspiracy.

The audience :

This is a bigger problem for the conspiracy than the few extra-biblical references. This is because if it was a conspiracy, then the authors spreading these lies should have been shouted down by the masses. Especially since these lies would have been spread within the lifetimes of those men and women who would have known them to be false. After all today you can not convince someone that a building was knocked down by a terrorist if it did not really happen. Those people knew that there was no Jesus or if there were, that he never did anything even close to what these liars claimed.

This is what we should see if it was a consipiracy. However, this is not what we see happened. Instead, this very town where the supposed events happened (but they never did if it was a conspiracy), became the center and brain for the most quickly advancing and totally overcoming religion ever on earth. The Christians (Jewish converts) from Jerusalem, who would have known if these had been wild lies, were so convinced that they faced the aforementioned persecutions to spread the word further.

These men would have known for a fact, that this conspiracy was a bunch of lies. The authorities would have known they were lies and called them just that. But what does history say they called these events? Magic. Demon work. Perhaps the greatest blow to the conspiracy theory is the fact that the enemies of this movement did not say that the conspirators were lying. They explained away the events instead. This leaves us with the understanding that SOMETHING happened which needed to be explained.

The normal athiest answer to this problem is that there is no first hand accounts of the authorities reaction. They do not have any real answer to the masses which converted but should not have believed anything because nothing ever happened. To this, we can reply Josephus commented on the authorities being involved with the later Christian movements and their reactions to the men involved. They called witchcraft, demons and executed those involved. But they never said the most obvious statement if it were all a big conspiracy, "Nothing ever happened."

Later accounts from the Talmud concure with Josephus on this point. They explain him away, but do not deny the Christian movement.

So far we have looked at why the conspirators would have invented a lie which would have brought them nothing but pain, poverty and hardship for both themselves and their families. We looked at the writings of the time and recognized that if this were truely a conspiracy, there shouldn't be ANYTHING extra, yet it is there. We looked at the audience and recognized that the audience SHOULD have ignored the liars because they obviously had nothing to go on. The conspirators were claiming some REALLY OUTRAGEOUS and more importantly, easily disprovable things. They should have been out before they even began. Yet this didn't happen.

Based on just these three points, I suggest that the conspiracy theory is a flop. It is certainly not the most plausible theory if it is even possible. And that is a big if.

[Lotan]

That would be Christ, then, as presented in the Bible.

Would not!

[Easyrider]

That would be Christ, then, as presented in the Bible.

Would not!

Would TOO! Occam's Razor!!

To argue otherwise you have to come up with all kinds of different explanations about who wrote this, who interpreted that; explanations to counter why so many NT writers agree on the main point of Christ's atonement / resurrection; and all the other 1000's of gyrations you have to go through to explain away the Biblical Christ.

[Lotan]

Would TOO! Occam's Razor!!

To argue otherwise you have to come up with all kinds of different explanations about who wrote this, who interpreted that; explanations to counter why so many NT writers agree on the main point of Christ's atonement / resurrection; and all the other 1000's of gyrations you have to go through to explain away the Biblical Christ.

To argue otherwise you certainly have no shortage of "explanations" yourself!

A supernatural explanation is no explanation at all.

[achilles12604]

Would TOO! Occam's Razor!!

To argue otherwise you have to come up with all kinds of different explanations about who wrote this, who interpreted that; explanations to counter why so many NT writers agree on the main point of Christ's atonement / resurrection; and all the other 1000's of gyrations you have to go through to explain away the Biblical Christ.

To argue otherwise you certainly have no shortage of "explanations" yourself!

A supernatural explanation is no explanation at all.

This view point is what I believe is the centerpiece of the debate. Theists have no problem starting with the assumption that God exists, while atheists start with the assumption that God does not exist.

Both viewpoints begin with their own assumptions (or bias) firmly in place. Hence, we shall never agree. But we can still have fun.


Lotan's point is much like all atheists. Like Hume before him, he has removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question. Easyrider left the supernatural as a possibility. Hence when Lotan looks for the best solution, GOD isn't even in his box of possibilities since God was removed before the quesiton was ever asked.

Easyrider on he other hand has his own box of possibilities and among the many possible solutions, God's work, is included.

Hence, God is the easyiest and most logical answer for Easyrider, and he isn't even given a chance with Lotan.

Isn't debate fun and intricate?

[Goat]

Would TOO! Occam's Razor!!

To argue otherwise you have to come up with all kinds of different explanations about who wrote this, who interpreted that; explanations to counter why so many NT writers agree on the main point of Christ's atonement / resurrection; and all the other 1000's of gyrations you have to go through to explain away the Biblical Christ.

To argue otherwise you certainly have no shortage of "explanations" yourself!

A supernatural explanation is no explanation at all.

This view point is what I believe is the centerpiece of the debate. Theists have no problem starting with the assumption that God exists, while atheists start with the assumption that God does not exist.

Both viewpoints begin with their own assumptions (or bias) firmly in place. Hence, we shall never agree. But we can still have fun.


Lotan's point is much like all atheists. Like Hume before him, he has removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question. Easyrider left the supernatural as a possibility. Hence when Lotan looks for the best solution, GOD isn't even in his box of possibilities since God was removed before the quesiton was ever asked.

Easyrider on he other hand has his own box of possibilities and among the many possible solutions, God's work, is included.

Hence, God is the easyiest and most logical answer for Easyrider, and he isn't even given a chance with Lotan.

Isn't debate fun and intricate?

It's more than that. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they accept Jesus as God. That complicates things quite a lot in my opinion.

[achilles12604]

I have noticed that a few atheists have come along and inserted their two cents. However, no one has pointed out where my logic is incorrect and certainly NO ONE has offered an alternative theory so far.

I'm not sure what it is you want. I have already pointed out that this 'conspiracy theory' is a non-starter, and juliod has offered something of a rebuttal, whether you may agree with him or not. I think that this topic has merit though, so I will refer to the OP...

I was giving some thought to the athiest viewpoint here.

I was unaware that the 'conspiracy theory' was the atheist viewpoint, or that there even was an atheist viewpoint. If you are suggesting that the majority of atheists subscribe to this viewpoint, then I think you should provide evidence that that is the case. As I mentioned previously, it is not widely held among any of the historical Jesus researchers that I am familiar with.

Was this theory more likely than my current one?

I consider both theories to be unlikely.

The theory: The earliest Christians, Paul, James, and the apostles at the least, perhaps more unnamed men, made up Christianity or borrowed ideas from other religions to make up their own. Then they pushed it as truth onto the unknowing masses and gathered a following.

In your own words "the conspiracy theory is a flop". It doesn't account for all the evidence. This why only a tiny fringe group of minimalist historical Jesus researchers buy into it. Apologists are fond of it because they find it easy to refute (read: strawman). I guess that they believe that by doing so they make their own theory "that it is more or less true and accurate" look better by comparison. That would be my analysis of the remaining bulk of your OP. As with all failed theories this one doesn't account for all the evidence either.

1) If this theory fits better than the theory that it is more or less true and accurate.

Neither one fits.

2) WHY one theory is better than the other.

Hard to say, since they're both wrong.

3) What other theories could be possible?

Although the answer can't be given in minute detail the prevailing theory is basically that Jesus was a special (although otherwise ordinary) guy whose ministry survived his death. The writings contained in the NT are entirely from diaspora Jews who never knew him and created pseudobiographical accounts of his life based on earlier traditions interpreted through their understanding of OT scripture (among other things). It is not as easy as simply saying "It's a lie!" or "It's really true!"

4) Why those theories should be considered.

Objectively, all theories should be considered. Those that best account for the evidence in the simplest manner are the most likely.

Yes, yes yes . . . . But what solution do YOU offer?!?


This was one of my questions and so far you have pointed out that you agree with me that the conspiracy theory is bogus although your claim that this theory is pushed by apologists as a straw man is in error because atheists use this theory quite a bit. I'll provide quotes of a couple from this very site.

we then have a very tough time concluding that Jesus existed or lived beyond the fertile imaginations of the early Christians. The Greeks invented Zeus, and the Egyptians invented Osiris—why then, cannot we see that Jesus was an invention as well? From http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=3242

This is the SECOND reply to the thread "The Historical validity of Jesus". If this theory is so bogus and errant, then why is it one of the first things that MANY atheists pull out?

Page 1 by Jagella

So, they left the rest of the accounts of Jesus and who he really was (divine God, Jewish Messiah, and resurrected Savior) on their cutting room floors.


I tend to think that is what the Pauline Christians did.
I don’t think they saw him as divine in his own lifetime.
That was left to the gentile to paste into the stories.

Page 3 by Cathar

It's my belief that there is no unified Jesus figure behind the Gospels and the New Testement. I think it is an amalgum of different elements. Greek philosophy, judaic messianism, anti-judaic cults, and mitranism. There may have been a Jesus associated with one or more of these influences, but that is true for any other common name at the time.

Page 6 by Juliod

Unlike Lotan, who posted just before yours, I don't think that Jesus was a real historical figure. I think he is an amalgum of several figures who were themselves fictional. So I'm not willing to give a favorable slant to potential evidence of Jesus.

Page 8 by Juliod


I think my point has been made. This conspiracy theory has been packaged differently but I just found it written at least 4 times, by 3 different atheists within the first 8 pages of a single thread (which is over 20 pages long and growing). Now, is it clear why you accusing apologists of pushing this as a straw man, is totally erroneous?

Bias can make people think many things. In this case it has made you think I was creating a straw man when really I was attacking the atheists theory, not one I made up.






But my last question was what then is your solution. So far you have done quite well at attacking the consipracy theory while at the same time condemning my viewpoint as false and without support, dispite the fact it is not without support but in reality, you simply refuse to accept what support I offer. But you have not offered your explaination for the facts.

It is easy to criticize. It is harder to formulate a plausible idea surrounding the facts and present it as an alternative.

[Lotan]

Lotan's point is much like all atheists. Like Hume before him, he has removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question. Easyrider left the supernatural as a possibility. Hence when Lotan looks for the best solution, GOD isn't even in his box of possibilities since God was removed before the quesiton was ever asked.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have warned you before about trying to speak for me. As with all of your earlier attempts, this one is a miserable failure.

I don't, for example "start with the assumption that God does not exist". That is the conclusion that I have reached, but I never discount it as a possibility, nor have I "removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question", even if it suits your argument to insult my intelligence (again).
It is incorrect to say that "when Lotan looks for the best solution, GOD isn't even in his box of possibilities since God was removed before the quesiton was ever asked". I simply don't turn immediately to a supernatural explanation, when a natural one will do. If you found a baseball on the floor beneath your broken picture window would you immediately conclude that God did it, or would you first question the kid across the street?
To apply this to the topic question, we have plenty of examples of biblical exegesis from before, during, and after Jesus' time where the commentary and the OT texts that they describe are interwoven to the point where they are practically indistinguishable. We know that the Israelites interpreted current events in light of past events (midrash), but the theory that the NT is a true story requires us to believe that this was not the case. Is it really easier to believe that the OT is filled with amazing (and often ill-fitting) prophecies about Jesus than to believe that the NT authors utilized a very common form of literary exegesis?

[Lotan]

It is easy to criticize. It is harder to formulate a plausible idea surrounding the facts and present it as an alternative.

Do give us all a break! I answered already...

Although the answer can't be given in minute detail the prevailing theory is basically that Jesus was a special (although otherwise ordinary) guy whose ministry survived his death. The writings contained in the NT are entirely from diaspora Jews who never knew him and created pseudobiographical accounts of his life based on earlier traditions interpreted through their understanding of OT scripture (among other things).

[achilles12604]

It is easy to criticize. It is harder to formulate a plausible idea surrounding the facts and present it as an alternative.

Do give us all a break! I answered already...

Although the answer can't be given in minute detail the prevailing theory is basically that Jesus was a special (although otherwise ordinary) guy whose ministry survived his death. The writings contained in the NT are entirely from diaspora Jews who never knew him and created pseudobiographical accounts of his life based on earlier traditions interpreted through their understanding of OT scripture (among other things).

Ok. I apologize that I missed your "Good teacher" theory. I still find it to be flawed however. Here is why. . .

Although the answer can't be given in minute detail

True. This does not proclude theorys which are a little more general which is what apologists offer.

the prevailing theory is basically that Jesus was a special (although otherwise ordinary) guy whose ministry survived his death

So he was a good guy who taught some stuff but didn't do anything really special (like healing or raising the dead). This is the "Good teacher" theory which is a favorite of Muslims and some Jews. The problems with this is now you have a good teacher who never did anything miraculous at all. Since miracles are impossible, (which we know because God does not exist), he must have been ONLY a good teacher. Nothing else would be possible. Yet he somehow is revered as a God less than 5 years later.

Now this man who was a good teacher somehow angers the sanheidren enough to have them accuse him of claiming Godship and have hime killed by the Romans. How? No one knows since if he really was nothing more than a good teacher who never claimed to be God, they would have had no reason to kill him. So something must have happened. But since the men spreading lies (back to the conspiracy) can not be trusted, it must not have been that he ever claimed to be God. After all this would fit in with the Gospel conspiracy but would contradict him being a good teacher, since no good teacher would ever claim to be God to the point of being killed. Why would a good man, do such a thing? I guess we will never know. Ignorance is better than accepting a plausible theory (the Gospel story) right?

Ok back to my line of thought. Ignoring the problem of how he angered the authorities enough to be killed, we have another problem. His followers are spreading lies that he performed miracles. We know this based on their writings, the writings of Paul and even to some extent the later Jewish historians. Plus it makes sense. After all why would a good teacher be mistaken for doing miracles if NO ONE was claiming it.

Now the problem, why would the people of Jerusalem, who would have known Jesus as a teacher and nothing more, suddenly believe his followers about a HUGE miracle as well as all of the other miracles they were claiming he did right in front of everyone? This doesn't work logically. These men and women, the very first converts from within the people of the town where Jesus did a lot of what he did, should have known for an absolute fact, that Jesus

a) was not Christ
b) never performed a miracle
c) never claimed to be God
d) never rose (ie the body would be there)
e) was nothing more than a good and wise man

How could Christianity have dug in so deeply and quickly among such people with such outrageous and obviously false lies being spread?

You see, in summation, your teacher idea is close but it fails to account for two things:

1) Why the authorities killed the man while claiming that he was claiming to be God/King?

2) Why the people of Jerusalem would have believe the apostles when they came in after Jesus death claiming Jesus did all sorts of miracles among them and then he rose from the dead.


This last statement

The writings contained in the NT are entirely from diaspora Jews who never knew him and created pseudobiographical accounts of his life based on earlier traditions interpreted through their understanding of OT scripture (among other things

A) goes against the consensus of MOST of the scholars I know.

B) Would be very hard to prove unless you have found some new
evidence I am unaware of.

C) is refuted by Paul in his letters, which by the way were just that, . . . letters. Not propaganda or an attempt to change the way history viewed this time period (unless you are about to claim a huge consipracy). They were letters from Paul to his friends about how things were going. Nothing really suspicious there.

D)Seems to be more of an opinion which fits what you wish to think rather than evidence supporting a viewpoint.

E) And most importantly, seems to fit in with the conspiracy theory which you yourself said was bogus.

Thank you for offering a theory at least.

[achilles12604]

Lotan's point is much like all atheists. Like Hume before him, he has removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question. Easyrider left the supernatural as a possibility. Hence when Lotan looks for the best solution, GOD isn't even in his box of possibilities since God was removed before the quesiton was ever asked.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have warned you before about trying to speak for me. As with all of your earlier attempts, this one is a miserable failure.

I don't, for example "start with the assumption that God does not exist". That is the conclusion that I have reached, but I never discount it as a possibility, nor have I "removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question", even if it suits your argument to insult my intelligence (again).
It is incorrect to say that "when Lotan looks for the best solution, GOD isn't even in his box of possibilities since God was removed before the question was ever asked". I simply don't turn immediately to a supernatural explanation, when a natural one will do. If you found a baseball on the floor beneath your broken picture window would you immediately conclude that God did it, or would you first question the kid across the street?
To apply this to the topic question, we have plenty of examples of biblical exegesis from before, during, and after Jesus' time where the commentary and the OT texts that they describe are interwoven to the point where they are practically indistinguishable. We know that the Israelites interpreted current events in light of past events (midrash), but the theory that the NT is a true story requires us to believe that this was not the case. Is it really easier to believe that the OT is filled with amazing (and often ill-fitting) prophecies about Jesus than to believe that the NT authors utilized a very common form of literary exegesis?

First - I think I am justified in my claim that God is not in your box of possibilities since you are an atheist. How can the supernatural be included in your ideals? It would be self-refuting.

After all you are the one who wrote ...............

A supernatural explanation is no explanation at all.

You accuse me of putting words into you mouth???!?!?!?! Incredible.

Second - I never insulted your intelligence. If You think I did then plainly pull out a quote from my writings which suggests I think you are stupid. I simply think you are wrong, a position which is allowed.

Third -

I simply don't turn immediately to a supernatural explanation, when a natural one will do. If you found a baseball on the floor beneath your broken picture window would you immediately conclude that God did it, or would you first question the kid across the street?

Nor do I. However, like easyrider, I find it much easier to believe the Gospel story over a theory of conspiracy based on lies or extreme miscommunication between hundreds of people within 5 years of a mans life.

The SIMPLIST explanation, if God is allowed to be possible, is that the story is true.

Furthermore, we are not talking about a broken window. We are talking about miracles which never happened, a missing body after only 3 days, and a man who never did anything wrong yet was executed as a criminal. These are pretty hard to explain away logically unless you allow for the possibility (however remote) that these men, who were committed to loving their neighbors and telling the truth, might actually be telling the truth.