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.

[bernee51]

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.

Is Islam true? Or a grand lie? Why are many willing die for this belief system?

Chrisitianty is a mix of Judaism and Greek mysticism. It was created by Paul (who was the first to write of the 'risen Christ'), and later 'concretized' by other writers in order to make it more understandable to the general populace. Its populrity arose out of the fact that it was a belief system for the common man (the meek shall inherit the earth) whereas religious practice and therefore privelege had been in the hands of the elite.

[Easyrider]

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.

Is Islam true? Or a grand lie? Why are many willing die for this belief system?

Chrisitianty is a mix of Judaism and Greek mysticism. It was created by Paul (who was the first to write of the 'risen Christ'), and later 'concretized' by other writers in order to make it more understandable to the general populace. Its populrity arose out of the fact that it was a belief system for the common man (the meek shall inherit the earth) whereas religious practice and therefore privelege had been in the hands of the elite.

Islam should be a separate topic. This one should hopefully be dedicated to just the Christian experience.

There's a lot of debate as to whether Paul was the first to write about Christ or whether it was Matthew or someone else. A fair question is, "Even if Paul was the first to write about Christ, does that necessarily mean he 'created' it"?

But again, the two main questions remain that weren't addressed: (1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for a lie (or whatever), and (2) Some kind of credible evidence to support that theory.

I also have reservations about the "Greek mysticism" claim if you'd care to cite one compelling example.

[juliod]

(1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for a lie (or whatever),

One motive could be greed. Religious charletans have been common throughout history. Jesus, if he existed, could be an example of that. For evidence, consider the story about the old woman who gave her few coins to Jesus and the Apostles. They said how great her gift was compared to larger gifts of the rich. But any moral person would have refused to take money from a poor and elderly person. It is, however, common for frauds and fakes to target that same group.

On a different tack, it is interesting to note that Paul's epistles are only found in groups. No early bible contains just one or two, which is what you would expect if these really were letters sent to particular recipients and subsequently copied and circulated. It seems instead that the epistles were written as a corpus of fake letters.

Lastly, a number of christian writings are known as "pseudonymous". That's just a fancy word for forgery. For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews was controversial even in ancient days. ven the earliest commentators could see that it was fake. But it remains in the bible. How can that be?

I also have reservations about the "Greek mysticism" claim if you'd care to cite one compelling example.

I'll give you three: Heaven, Hell, the soul.

That christian thinking adopted ideas from the Greeks is hardly in question. Once can see the intrusion of hellenistic ideas even in the later parts of the Old Testement.

BTW, why do you think the NT is written in Greek? Jesus was supposedly an Aramaic speaker. At the very least we see a change from an Aramaic cult to a Greek one. That suggests a demographic change that would nicely explain the intrusion of Greek philosophy.

DanZ

[Easyrider]

(1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for a lie (or whatever),

One motive could be greed. Religious charletans have been common throughout history. Jesus, if he existed, could be an example of that. For evidence, consider the story about the old woman who gave her few coins to Jesus and the Apostles. They said how great her gift was compared to larger gifts of the rich. But any moral person would have refused to take money from a poor and elderly person. It is, however, common for frauds and fakes to target that same group.

On a different tack, it is interesting to note that Paul's epistles are only found in groups. No early bible contains just one or two, which is what you would expect if these really were letters sent to particular recipients and subsequently copied and circulated. It seems instead that the epistles were written as a corpus of fake letters.

Lastly, a number of christian writings are known as "pseudonymous". That's just a fancy word for forgery. For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews was controversial even in ancient days. ven the earliest commentators could see that it was fake. But it remains in the bible. How can that be?

I also have reservations about the "Greek mysticism" claim if you'd care to cite one compelling example.

I'll give you three: Heaven, Hell, the soul.

That christian thinking adopted ideas from the Greeks is hardly in question. Once can see the intrusion of hellenistic ideas even in the later parts of the Old Testement.

BTW, why do you think the NT is written in Greek? Jesus was supposedly an Aramaic speaker. At the very least we see a change from an Aramaic cult to a Greek one. That suggests a demographic change that would nicely explain the intrusion of Greek philosophy.

DanZ

Thanks for your thoughts!

Heaven, hell, and the soul - all arguably found in Judaism as well (note Daniel 12:2 - an afterlife of "shame and everlasting contempt"; soul - many mentions in the Old Testament; and heaven - many depictions of a positive afterlife in the Old Testament. i.e. the 23rd Psalm - "I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever." etc.).

The greed theory doesn't seem to work if they're persecuted to the death - as many were - and don't have much of a chance to enjoy it. There's not much evidence for any of the disciples, etc., ever having much wealth either. To the contrary, they donated what they had to the poor and shared their belongings. If they were greedy they would have kept everything they could.

Theories abound, but I'm still looking for some credible evidence to back these theories up.

[Joe Blackbird]

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.

To propose this alleged 'motive', I would have to have this 'evidence' first, which I do not. All I have is a theory. I repeat, THIS IS JUST MY THEORY.

I believe the New Testament did not come about because of some organized conspiracy motive. I think it was a natural convergence of Judaism, the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua and other influential religions and movement of that time (ie- Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, Greek Philosophy, etc.). Yeshua surely sought to reform Judaism, and was very charismatic and influential. Some surely believed that he must be the Messiah as predicted in Hebrew Scripture. But he was executed, ending (for many Jews I'm sure) that prospect, since the Messiah was to rule Israel like a king- specifically, King David.

Followers of Rabbi Yeshua continued to relay his teachings to others and through time a story began to form around reflections and speculations about who Yeshua was. These stories began to conform more closely to Messianic passages of the Hebrew Bible as time went on, until eventually a small group of people came to believe that Yeshua was the Messiah and that the Hebrew Scriptures had to be re-evaluated in light of this. This brought opposition from orthodox Judaism, which sought to preserve their ancestral religious traditions.

Certain people who had known Yeshua became venerated by others in the small group of early Christians and were given a special title; Apostles. Then, Paul arrived on the scene and gained popularity with the gentiles, so he fought to include them in what was originally a sect of Judaism. At that time some 'gentile' rites became embedded in the Christian tradition (largely from some of early Christianity's rivals, Mithraism and Zoroastrianism; these rites include- Baptism, Communion and Hell) to win over new non-Jewish followers.

Collectively, the community began to gather letters and other writings that were being used in the group to promote their sect. Various narratives were written to introduce new converts to the life and teachings of Yeshua. These were what became known as Gospels. In these 'Gospels' Jesus became a Greek hero who had healing powers and even conquered death. More letters were written and collected as time went on, some written in the style and name of a venerated Apostle.

The stories and letters became very popular until Christianity started to become an influential force in Roman society, and because of it's power and popularity- the roman authorities responded with violence to supress it. Until, finally, the tables turned and Constantine converted; making Christianity the religion of the empire.

The writings that constituted what was considered 'orthodox' for Christians in the first few centuries began to be collected into one volume. There was not universal agreement, of course, since not all Christians at that time believed the same thing. The most prominent form of Christianity finally won out, and it's representatives condemned the weaker, less popular forms of Christianity (such as Gnosticism) as 'heretical'. A volume was compiled that most church officials agreed with and the New Testament was born.

I know I can't prove it- but I think something pretty close to this probably happened. The idea that a group of malicious men just got together and whipped up some sensational story is, to me, ludicrous. These things are rooted in reality, but interpreted through the lense of faith. I believe that those who helped to form the New Testament were generally very sincere people who were telling the 'truth' as they understood it. Anyway, that's my take. Sorry I cannot provide evidence for this, but right now this is how it all comes together in my own mind.

[bernee51]

Islam should be a separate topic. This one should hopefully be dedicated to just the Christian experience.

The reference to Islam was in answer to your question regarding believers putting their lives on the line for a 'lie'. It happened then - it happens now.

There's a lot of debate as to whether Paul was the first to write about Christ or whether it was Matthew or someone else. A fair question is, "Even if Paul was the first to write about Christ, does that necessarily mean he 'created' it"?

I also have reservations about the "Greek mysticism" claim if you'd care to cite one compelling example.

I think it has been pretty well esteblished that the earlist christian writings are those of Paul. He wrote only of a risen Christ. His writings are clearly a mixture of Judaism and Greek mysticism.

Dionysian mythology found its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were said to have been born from a mortal woman but fathered by a god, to have returned from the dead, and to have transformed water into wine.

But again, the two main questions remain that weren't addressed: (1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for a lie (or whatever), and (2) Some kind of credible evidence to support that theory.

The credible motive is as I said. A reactionary belief system countering both the invading force (Romans) and the elite priest class. The cult of Jesus was for the common man. The evidence - hermeneutics of course. The bible is mythology.

[Joe Blackbird]

Heaven, hell, and the soul - all arguably found in Judaism as well

Actually, Hell is not as clearly layed out in the Bible as some of your comments seem to try to make it. Sheol does not specifically mean- Hell. Jesus used the Greek word Gehenna, meaning the Valley of Hinnom. He did not use a Greek variant of the Hebrew word Sheol. To say that there are Bible passages that suggest suffering in Sheol does not take into account the passages about Sheol that do not say that.

1Sa 2:6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

1Ki 2:6 Act therefore according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace.

Job 14:13 Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!

Job 21:13 They spend their days in prosperity, and in peace they go down to Sheol.

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

Ecc 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Isa 7:11 "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven."

Isa 14:9 Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations.

Isa 57:9 You journeyed to the king with oil and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol.

Amo 9:2 "If they dig into Sheol, from there shall my hand take them; if they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down.

Jon 2:2 saying, "I called out to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

As you can see, it's pretty hard to substitue Hell for Sheol in these passages, and if Hell and Sheol are not the same thing- than where is there any refernce to Hell in the Hebrew Scriptures?

[juliod]

all arguably found in Judaism as well

Yes, but only arguably. The doctrine of the OT is different in different places. Since it's not possible for an all-powerful, all-knowing god to be confused, this proves that the bible as a whole is a product of human imagination.

note Daniel 12:2

Daniel is a case-in-point of hellenistic intrusions. The Greek and Hebrew versions are different. In fact, all the major faiths (Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic, and Judaism) have different versions of Daniel. This clearly shows that the book is not any sort of "divine truth" but still in flux as the various religions were being formed.

The greed theory doesn't seem to work if they're persecuted to the death - as many were - and don't have much of a chance to enjoy it.

You seem to be arguing that no one could be motivated by greed if there is risk of being punished. That isn't true now and wouldn't have been true then.

To the contrary, they donated what they had to the poor and shared their belongings.

Or they said they did. As a modern example, Pat Robertson has been demonstrated to use his "charity" funds to support his diamond mines in Africa.

If they were giving their money to the poor, why did they take money from them?

Theories abound, but I'm still looking for some credible evidence to back these theories up.

I've given you credible evidence. The story of the old woman is not consistent with the supposed christian support of the poor. It is only consistent with a group of con-men ripping off the poor.

DanZ

[Easyrider]

Islam should be a separate topic. This one should hopefully be dedicated to just the Christian experience.

The reference to Islam was in answer to your question regarding believers putting their lives on the line for a 'lie'. It happened then - it happens now.

There's a lot of debate as to whether Paul was the first to write about Christ or whether it was Matthew or someone else. A fair question is, "Even if Paul was the first to write about Christ, does that necessarily mean he 'created' it"?

I also have reservations about the "Greek mysticism" claim if you'd care to cite one compelling example.

I think it has been pretty well esteblished that the earlist christian writings are those of Paul. He wrote only of a risen Christ. His writings are clearly a mixture of Judaism and Greek mysticism.

Dionysian mythology found its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were said to have been born from a mortal woman but fathered by a god, to have returned from the dead, and to have transformed water into wine.

But again, the two main questions remain that weren't addressed: (1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for a lie (or whatever), and (2) Some kind of credible evidence to support that theory.

The credible motive is as I said. A reactionary belief system countering both the invading force (Romans) and the elite priest class. The cult of Jesus was for the common man. The evidence - hermeneutics of course. The bible is mythology.

On Islam, they died for what they believed was the truth. The earliest Christian martyrs would have died for a lie, had they concocted it.

r.e. "Dionysian mythology found its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were said to have been born from a mortal woman but fathered by a god, to have returned from the dead, and to have transformed water into wine."

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

Can you identify one of Paul's teachings from Greek "mysticism" that doesn't have some foundation in the Old Testament?

Cheers...