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.

[Confused]

The development of the Christian religion has many factors and influences. As Mack points out it didnt develop in a vacuum and Confused makes a good point that consistency is not the strong suit of NT writings even if it is only the selected writings of a particular trend we call the proto-orthodox view. It is largely a development of oppositions to others such as the Ebonite on one end and Gnostics on the other. Even these labels are limited as there were as in early orthodox thinking and expression many varieties.

I think Confused's basis for so-called inconsistency on the main doctrines of the NT are suspect, especially considering the redundancy of them in various NT works, and the OT basis for many of them, which are clearly evident.

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?

Evil according to whom? Not the NT writers and early church, which also had many former Judaism converts.

The first follows of Jesus did not see themselves as constructing a new religion and were not considered "totally evil" and the excommunication fro the Jewish communities did not happen until much later.

Partially agree. The NT writers saw Christ / Christianity as the fulfillment of OT Judaism. This is evidenced by the numerous references to OT scriptures.

Most of the animosity found in the gospels seem to be projected into the story as it related to later developments as the Christians came to see Jesus as God in a way not understood by Palestinian Jews.

Please document your "projected" claim. I see the animosity towards Christ and his followers as not being projected INTO the Gospels, but an integral part thereof - as historical observations.

My skepitcism about the NT isn't only based on the gnostic writing found later, but also on a book I am reading called "Misquoting Jesus" which is written by a Christian who specializes in NT (PhD). He has studied both the NT and the OT and during his early college years he got his 3 yr diploma from a biblical school, then bachelors from a University on to Masters etc.. He took many language courses and based on his comparisons thus far (as I haven't finished the book) he finds that when the NT and OT are translated from Greek and Hebrew into English the actual meanings aren't taken corrrectly into context. He also considers the fact that not only do the translations not coincide, but when read in its original language, taken into context of the historical period, they also don't correlate with what the English understanding is. He goes even further to question the authenticity since we actually have no original writings for the NT. None of the autographs have survived. I am just getting to the part where he starts to address who changed what and why.

But I still don't think there is a conspiracy theory per se. At least not intentional. I think most modern day Christians believe what they practice. But lets be honest here, there are many religions and not all can be right. It makes one wonder what is true and what isn't.

[Cathar1950]

Please document your "projected" claim. I see the animosity towards Christ and his followers as not being projected INTO the Gospels, but an integral part thereof - as historical observations.

This request from someone that uses someone else's biblical quote mining, out of context, unexplained and debatable? They would be the historical experiences of the writers many years later, which had not observed what happened, long after the war that devastated Judea. Again they are not historical observation.

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?

This is I quoting some one else. I cant edit my post to fix it.
I dont remember whom I was quoting. It seems it was either easyrider or achilles12604.
But it went like this;

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.

You answered either you or achilles12604 with;

Evil according to whom? Not the NT writers and early church, which also had many former Judaism converts.

I guess you can hammer it out.
I dont think your response makes sense.
I find it amusing. But I got a great sense of humor.


My response was this;

The first follows of Jesus did not see themselves as constructing a new religion and were not considered "totally evil" and the excommunication fro the Jewish communities did not happen until much later. Paul would be working for the High Priest and therefore the Romans. If we believe anything in Acts it seems that the Christians were unmolested by most of their Jewish fellows. It also seems they had more in common with Zealots and Pharisees and the lower priesthood. There may have been less then a thousand killed by the Romans in the 300 to 400 years before Constantine and this was usually only done to the leaders some of which almost asked to be killed. They also had their own support structure by the time the reluctant separation between Christians and Jews took place.
Most of the animosity found in the gospels seem to be projected into the story as it related to later developments as the Christians came to see Jesus as God in a way not understood by Palestinian Jews. I think your above paragraph is highly questionable and sounds like apologetic rhetoric and lacks historical substance. You might want to read some of Tony Starks writings for better details. Many were let go and they were asked to repent. But the number killed would be minuscule compared to the Jews being killed throughout the Roman world. Stark could also give you reasons why the Christians flourished when and where they did so.

[Easyrider]

My skepitcism about the NT isn't only based on the gnostic writing found later, but also on a book I am reading called "Misquoting Jesus" which is written by a Christian who specializes in NT (PhD). He has studied both the NT and the OT and during his early college years he got his 3 yr diploma from a biblical school, then bachelors from a University on to Masters etc.. He took many language courses and based on his comparisons thus far (as I haven't finished the book) he finds that when the NT and OT are translated from Greek and Hebrew into English the actual meanings aren't taken corrrectly into context.

For every one of those airheads there's teams of Ph.d.'s, Th.d.'s, language scholars, etc., who have translated the Old and New Testaments with a more Biblical view. So what? Have you read any of them or do you just read liberal theologian rags?

[Cathar1950]

My skepitcism about the NT isn't only based on the gnostic writing found later, but also on a book I am reading called "Misquoting Jesus" which is written by a Christian who specializes in NT (PhD). He has studied both the NT and the OT and during his early college years he got his 3 yr diploma from a biblical school, then bachelors from a University on to Masters etc.. He took many language courses and based on his comparisons thus far (as I haven't finished the book) he finds that when the NT and OT are translated from Greek and Hebrew into English the actual meanings aren't taken corrrectly into context.

For every one of those airheads there's teams of Ph.d.'s, Th.d.'s, language scholars, etc., who have translated the Old and New Testaments with a more Biblical view. So what? Have you read any of them or do you just read liberal theologian rags?

It looks to me that a theological apologetic rhetorical rag is more to you liking.
How do you translate the bible OT or NT with a" more biblical view"?
That is laughable. That is another FSTDT.
Erhman is hardly a hack or airhead and your ad hominem remarks are telling of your despiration as well as being well over your head.

[Confused]

My skepitcism about the NT isn't only based on the gnostic writing found later, but also on a book I am reading called "Misquoting Jesus" which is written by a Christian who specializes in NT (PhD). He has studied both the NT and the OT and during his early college years he got his 3 yr diploma from a biblical school, then bachelors from a University on to Masters etc.. He took many language courses and based on his comparisons thus far (as I haven't finished the book) he finds that when the NT and OT are translated from Greek and Hebrew into English the actual meanings aren't taken corrrectly into context.

For every one of those airheads there's teams of Ph.d.'s, Th.d.'s, language scholars, etc., who have translated the Old and New Testaments with a more Biblical view. So what? Have you read any of them or do you just read liberal theologian rags?

This author is actually quite credible: Bart Ehrman. Tell me, is it him you are attacking or me? If you can find nothing informative to say to me as opposed to just your continuous negative remarks about my thinking etc.... then by all means, feel free to put me on your ignore list. You do nothing but instill guilt in me and I an overtired of it.

[arayhay]

My skepitcism about the NT isn't only based on the gnostic writing found later, but also on a book I am reading called "Misquoting Jesus" which is written by a Christian who specializes in NT (PhD). He has studied both the NT and the OT and during his early college years he got his 3 yr diploma from a biblical school, then bachelors from a University on to Masters etc.. He took many language courses and based on his comparisons thus far (as I haven't finished the book) he finds that when the NT and OT are translated from Greek and Hebrew into English the actual meanings aren't taken corrrectly into context.

For every one of those airheads there's teams of Ph.d.'s, Th.d.'s, language scholars, etc., who have translated the Old and New Testaments with a more Biblical view. So what? Have you read any of them or do you just read liberal theologian rags?

[strike]

christianity clings to a Greek interpretation of the nt because it's stuck in a big fat greek mind set.[/strike]
a subterfuge/shift from the Hebrew mind set of the WHOLE BIBLE.

[Biker]

My skepitcism about the NT isn't only based on the gnostic writing found later, but also on a book I am reading called "Misquoting Jesus" which is written by a Christian who specializes in NT (PhD). He has studied both the NT and the OT and during his early college years he got his 3 yr diploma from a biblical school, then bachelors from a University on to Masters etc.. He took many language courses and based on his comparisons thus far (as I haven't finished the book) he finds that when the NT and OT are translated from Greek and Hebrew into English the actual meanings aren't taken corrrectly into context.

For every one of those airheads there's teams of Ph.d.'s, Th.d.'s, language scholars, etc., who have translated the Old and New Testaments with a more Biblical view. So what? Have you read any of them or do you just read liberal theologian rags?

This author is actually quite credible: Bart Ehrman. Tell me, is it him you are attacking or me? If you can find nothing informative to say to me as opposed to just your continuous negative remarks about my thinking etc.... then by all means, feel free to put me on your ignore list. You do nothing but instill guilt in me and I an overtired of it.

Confused,
I have read some of B.D.Ehrmans stuff. I don't agree with some of his interpretation of the data. He is obviously biased in his liberal theology.Given the same information I wouldn't interpret it the same as he. Many recognized scholars don't agree with ol Barty, either.
Its just like creative accounting, or voodoo economics, there are creative "license" taken with data everyday.
A given set of data given to numerous scholars, correlated,assembled together,and interpreted and conclusions drawn, differ from one individual to another, given their, priori, presuppositions, and theology. It never ceases to amaze how vast an array of opinions on any given subject can occur.
Take it with a grain of salt.
Look around.
I can suggest some alternate readings.

Biker

[Cathar1950]

I have read some of B.D.Ehrmans stuff.

Obviously it was not enough. Did you actually read his stuff or what some other "Bible-Believer" apologist wrote about him?

I don't agree with some of his interpretation of the data. He is obviously biased in his liberal theology.Given the same information I wouldn't interpret it the same as he. Many recognized scholars don't agree with ol Barty, either.

What interpretation and data dont you agree with? How is he "obviously biased and what is this "Liberal Theology" you claim is its roots?
How would you interpret it? Do you know how he interprets it? Who are these "recognized scholars" and what is it they dont agree with? What is their non-liberal bias?
Tell us where "you" disagree.

Its just like creative accounting, or voodoo economics, there are creative "license" taken with data everyday.

It isnt anything like those and it does show you lack of understanding the subject area. It is nothing less then a poorly implied ad hominem remarks.
I think you should be taken like a grain of salt.

I could suggest a book by Tim Callahan "Bible Prophesy: Failure or Fulfillment" also his book "The Secret Origins of the Bible". I like "Lost Christianities" by Erhman as well as "Peter Paul and Mary M". I am reading Ehrmans "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" it is a little more detailed then "Misquoting". I also enjoyed Alar Ellegards Jesus one hundred years before Christ"

[arayhay]

I have read some of B.D.Ehrmans stuff.

Obviously it was not enough. Did you actually read his stuff or what some other "Bible-Believer" apologist wrote about him?

I don't agree with some of his interpretation of the data. He is obviously biased in his liberal theology.Given the same information I wouldn't interpret it the same as he. Many recognized scholars don't agree with ol Barty, either.

What interpretation and data dont you agree with? How is he "obviously biased and what is this "Liberal Theology" you claim is its roots?
How would you interpret it? Do you know how he interprets it? Who are these "recognized scholars" and what is it they dont agree with? What is their non-liberal bias?
Tell us where "you" disagree.

Its just like creative accounting, or voodoo economics, there are creative "license" taken with data everyday.

It isnt anything like those and it does show you lack of understanding the subject area. It is nothing less then a poorly implied ad hominem remarks.
I think you should be taken like a grain of salt.

I could suggest a book by Tim Callahan "Bible Prophesy: Failure or Fulfillment" also his book "The Secret Origins of the Bible". I like "Lost Christianities" by Erhman as well as "Peter Paul and Mary M". I am reading Ehrmans "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" it is a little more detailed then "Misquoting". I also enjoyed Alar Ellegards Jesus one hundred years before Christ"

i have a book for you. "the seporation of church and faith" by daniel gruber - volume one is copernicus and the jews

[Biker]

My books bigger than your book. So what. Anyone with any savvy can clearly see that the Gospels are written by 4 distinct personalities.They were written by the people whos name it is attributed to.they were handed down from generation to generation just as received. No one has proof of anything other than that. It is pure conjecture or speculation to postulate the "conspiracy". Why would some 20th or 21st century Phd. (piled high and deep) so called scholar, know more than a scholar from the 1st,2nd, century, I don't get it? How would a 21st century guy have more accurate info than a 1st or 2nd century guy?It does not make any sense. The Phd's are selling books and you guy's are buying them. Thats the conspiracy. It's called capitalism, it's called marketing, its called the rumor mill.
These guys sit around speculating, well what about this and what about that and if this is like this and that is like that then that could mean this and... You guys buy it? With 5,700 Greek manuscripts all saying the same thing, what should we conclude? We should conclude that we have a accurate present manuscript. Now the problem is voodoo interpretation of the accurate document. But we can wade through that cesspool also because there are about a 100 Greek and Hebrew helps out on the market so the average guy can look it up for himself and not rely on the witch doctors to interpret it for them.
So lets quit the book waven contest, because the voodoo priests have essentially been relegated to obscurity anyway.
Unless your lazy and need somebody to tell you. But it is kind of like handing some guy you really don't know who has the "title" invest manager, all your money and say here take care of this for me.
Except in this case it is more important because it is spiritual matters, which have "eternal" consequence.
Of course, what do I know, I don't have it piled high and deep (Phd).

Biker