Gospel truth – or a grand conspiracy?

[Easyrider]

If the Gospels and Epistle writers were not being truthful in their depictions of Jesus Christ as a miracle worker, the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God, the resurrected Savior, and so on, then I think someone needs to provide a compelling motive, backed up by some sort of credible evidence, as to why some nine or so different New Testament authors shared such a common vision? What was their motive for a non-Biblical Jesus, considering their lives were on the line either way, and since such a pack of (alleged) lies should be easily refuted by others who knew a “different” Jesus? Why the “grand conspiracy” if Jesus is not who they claimed?

So, two things are asked for here: (1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for an alleged lie (or whatever), and (2) Some kind of credible evidence to support that theory.

[Cathar1950]

I don't know what you mean.
I think he means he doesn't have an answer and he hopes you will find one for him. Also he feels he has been kicked like a dog.
Thanks for the list and it does seem you found your answer.
This thread might be a good place to bring in the Evangelical mind-control system of the NT and American biblical Christianity with the various devices used.

[Easyrider]

I don't know what you mean.
I think he means he doesn't have an answer and he hopes you will find one for him. Also he feels he has been kicked like a dog.
Thanks for the list and it does seem you found your answer.
This thread might be a good place to bring in the Evangelical mind-control system of the NT and American biblical Christianity with the various devices used.

What it means is that he was presented with evidence from both the Old and New Testaments that prophets and / or disciples were persecuted and / or murdered, and now he wants all their names, addresses, IQ's, and hat sizes in order to continue his never-ending debate on this.

p.s. "Get a new dog" means get a new subject. If there's any dog-kicking to be done feel free to find a bowser of your own.

[ENIGMA]

I don't know what you mean.
I think he means he doesn't have an answer and he hopes you will find one for him. Also he feels he has been kicked like a dog.
Thanks for the list and it does seem you found your answer.
This thread might be a good place to bring in the Evangelical mind-control system of the NT and American biblical Christianity with the various devices used.

What it means is that he was presented with evidence from both the Old and New Testaments that prophets and / or disciples were persecuted and / or murdered, and now he wants all their names, addresses, IQ's, and hat sizes in order to continue his never-ending debate on this.

No, thus far he has asked for A name, no addresses, no IQs, and no sizes of hats or alternate headwear primarily in use by them.

Simply put, you have yet to provide a name and provide any evidence which hasn't been easily refuted to support that the prophet/disciple in question were killed by the alleged perpetrators.

p.s. "Get a new dog" means get a new subject. If there's any dog-kicking to be done feel free to find a bowser of your own.

Fine, new subject:

I would like to arrange your payment to me of $75 for services rendered as certified by a number of the members of this forum.

I would prefer a Paypal transaction, and any further inquiries concerning the transaction or services rendered will be addressed in a manner that, judging from the recent messages here, you will consider to be satisfactory.

[Easyrider]

Simply put, you have yet to provide a name and provide any evidence which hasn't been easily refuted to support that the prophet/disciple in question were killed by the alleged perpetrators.

That's simply not true. You obviously haven't been following the posts.

[ENIGMA]

Simply put, you have yet to provide a name and provide any evidence which hasn't been easily refuted to support that the prophet/disciple in question were killed by the alleged perpetrators.

That's simply not true. You obviously haven't been following the posts.

Having reviewed all the posts in this thread, I have yet to find any suitably supported instance of such a death. For my benefit, and for the benefit of any who may be lurking, perhaps you can provide a name, circumstances of death, and the evidence to support it.

[Lotan]

"Get a new dog" means get a new subject.

Oh, now I get it. You're trying to tell me what to do.

...he was presented with evidence from both the Old and New Testaments...

"The Bible is true 'cause it says so in the Bible?"

...and now he wants all their names, addresses, IQ's, and hat sizes in order to continue his never-ending debate on this.

You're just making stuff up now. All I have been asking for is that you tell me who you were referring to when you said...

They killed the prophets in the Old Testament too, then Jesus, then Stephen - a disciple, then James, and before that John the Baptist.

You claimed that the OT Israelites (which?) killed their prophets (which?) but what about the rest of the list?
It sounds like you have your own "grand conspiracy"!

[Easyrider]

Grind that axe...

[MrWhy]

According to various scholarly researchers, these alleged parallels of Dionysian (and Mithra) to Jesus did not appear in history until after the life of Christ, when those mystic religions were subsequently blended into Christianity. No credible case has been made that I've seen yet that Christianity "borrowed" any of these elements, but that they were "borrowed" from Christianity. Here's a link which I think substantiates my point:

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/JCMyth_1.html

Cheers...

Biblical source varies depending on who you read. The following sites have some info supporting the idea that the Bible contains borrowed myths.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/C ... index.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

Much history of Bible scripture seems to come only from the Bible or related religious text. This is scripture verifying scripture. Not very credible. Some corroboration of this scripture development from multiple non-religious sources would do much to validate who did what and when. Where miracles are claimed a great deal of objective corroboration is required. It would seem very difficult to get accurate information from text that had such a long period of development. So many people involved over many decades, and little verification from other historians. We can't get accurate accounts about current events, what are the chances for events hundreds of years in the past.

Why would the authors risk their lives to write about miracles? The best explanation is that they deeply believed in what they were telling, but their belief does not make facts. There may have been deliberate deception on the part of sources, or simple enhancement each time a story was told. One of those involved may have had some delusional ideas and convinced the others. It was too long ago and we don't know enough about the specific timelines of events, or the people who were supposed to be eye witnesses. If stories of miracles like these were told today, think about how skeptical everyone would be. It would take more than just accounts written by a few people who had vested interest. These are usually called stories of miracles, but they could also be called accounts of magic. We can believe magic really happened when it is verified with a thorough investigation by numerous objective uninvolved researchers. And most investigators would ask that the event in question be repeated. When viewed with even a little detached skepticism, it is astounding that scripture miracles have any credibility.

[Cathar1950]

The Gospels are anonymous and it is only later traditions that gave them authors. Being anonymous allowed them to be read as authority as well as protected the life of the writer. There is a large historical gap in the first few hundred years of the church and the Jesus movement. Except for Paul’s letters, which seems to be at odds with Jesus’ original followers we have virtual silence. One wonders how much was simply eliminated.
Burton seems to think the Jerusalem church was in the Jewish wars leaving Pauline Christianity as the remaining tradition. Many more Jews died in the Jewish wars then Christians killed by Rome. Many Christians begged to be killed as this gave them a ticket to heaven. Dieing for a belief does not prove you are correct in your beliefs, it only shows that they were committed.

[Lotan]

Get a new dog, Lotan.

Why not? That "putting their lives on the line" argument wont hunt!

Grind that axe...

I found this...

"There once was a woodcutter in Old England who tended to get angry very easily when someone offended him. It was rumored that he was also responsible for a series of axe murders that had been occurring, because he tended to confront those that he was angry with, ending the conversation by saying, "Well, heck, why should I stand around here and talk to such a fool when I've got an AXE TO GRIND."

I have no axe to grind for you, or for Jesus of Nazareth, for that matter. That doesn’t mean that I can’t take a whack at some of the shoddy arguments in your opening post…

If the Gospels and Epistle writers were not being truthful…

What do you mean by "truthful", that they believed what they wrote, or that the events that they describe actually happened?

…I think someone needs to provide a compelling motive…

Messianic expectation. It was all the rage back then, especially after Pompey defiled the Temple. The later destruction of the Temple was "the clearest signal imaginable that the Christian interpretation of Scripture was right an the Jewish one wrong" (Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ).

…why some nine or so different New Testament authors…

Nine "or so". I'd say that 20 was a conservative estimate, not including assorted 'sources' (including OT authors), and later redactors.

…shared such a common vision…

If only you were just kidding about that. It's a huge subject, deserving of its own thread, but suffice to say that there is a diversity of opinion on many of the details of Jesus' life between the different books of the NT, and even more outside of it.

…their lives were on the line…

First century, post-Temple, diaspora Jews were hardly in the sort of danger that you imagine they were, especially in the Syrian communities where many of the NT writings are believed to have been created.

…a pack of (alleged) lies…

That would be 'prophecy historicized'. These were very religious people. They believed in what they wrote, even when they invented it. I see Christians do this sort of thing all the time on this MB.

Take the author of Mark, for example...
"Following the established practice, he would have examined the events in the life of his spiritual leader thriugh the lens of Jewish history. He would amplify his hero's accomplishments by creatively associating them with events from the lives of Abraham, Moses, and the pther larger-than-life figures of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible is filled with examples of this technique at work: Moses parts the Red Sea; later, when the tradition wants to assert that Elijah was a great prophet like Moses, he parts the waters of the Jordan. When Elijah dies, Elisha literally inherits his mantle, and, as a sign that the Force is now with him, he too parts the waves. Is this a coincidence? Of course not. The writers of the Hebrew Bible use this storyteller's device to associate today's prophet with those of the past - in effect, to give him credentials." Russell Shorto, The Gospel Truth, pp. 23-24

…should be easily refuted by others who knew a "different" Jesus?

You mean like Marcionites, or Ebionites, or Gnostics like the Thomas Christians? Lots of people knew a "different" Jesus, but after three centuries, what we now consider orthodox Christianity won out. Except for Paul’s authentic letters, the rest of the NT was written too late for any eyewitnesses to refute the gospel story even if anyone would have listened to them.

Why the "grand conspiracy" if Jesus is not who they claimed?

Why the "grand conspiracy" at all? Isn’t it just another weak argument designed to make the converted feel good about their beliefs? Does anyone besides professional apologists take it seriously?