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.

[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.

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.

Nice theory, Joe. As I was reading it I was wondering about the miracles in the life of Jesus. The Talmud refers to his "sorcery", and there's also this I came across:

THE SUN DARKENED AT NOON

Circa 750 B.C.

According to Amos 1:1, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah (767-739 B.C.), and Jeroboam, king of Israel (782-753 B.C.). The name "Amos" is derived from the Hebrew term meaning, "lift a burden," or "burden-bearer" (note Isaiah 9:4, speaking of the coming Messiah as one who would carry our burdens, and also Matthew 11:28). His calling by God was to foretell of pending judgments upon a number of surrounding nations, and particularly of a coming judgment upon Israel. God also gave Amos a glimpse of events that would soon occur in the future, though the significance of what was prophesied may or may not have been made known to Amos. And so it is in the Old Testament book of Amos that we find a prophecy that for many centuries was looked upon with wonder and curiosity:

"'In that day,' declares the Sovereign Lord, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight....I will make that time like mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.'" (Amos 8:9-10)

It probably wasn't until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in 32 A.D. that the prophecy of Amos took on clarity and meaning, for in Matthew 27:45 Jesus had just been nailed to the cross when the Bible records:

"From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land."

Just as the "Star of Bethlehem" marked the birth of Christ, so now God brought forth another celestial miracle to pronounce His death. This prophecy is one of those that is beyond the control of mortal man, and as such it dispels the theory that Christ could have manipulated events so as to make it appear that He was the Messiah. But is there any evidence that this really occurred? Did the sun go dark at noonday? In his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Volume 1, pages 81-87), Josh McDowell provides the following historical evidence that what took place at Calvary was more than just fanciful mythology:

Concerning the Samaritan-born historian Thallus, circa 52 A.D: (The writings of Thallus no longer exist, yet were alluded to by the historian Julius Africanus, as follows): "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me - unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died."

Likewise, Africanus wrote concerning the writings of another first century historian by the name of Phlegon: "....during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."

Phlegon is also mentioned by the historian Origen in his work, "Contra Celsum," book 2, sections 14, 39, and 59: "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ....and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar." Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history.

Finally, the 2nd century Roman born jurist and theologian Tertullian referred to a Roman archives report of an "unexplained darkness that took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as can be seen in the archives of Pontius Pilate."

The darkness spoken of in the book of Matthew occurred between noon and three P.M. in the afternoon (from the sixth to the ninth hours, as the Jews were noted as referring to the sixth and the ninth hours of daylight). Note that a solar eclipse will take less than an hour to complete, and a total solar eclipse lasts just a few minutes. This, coupled with the fact that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon (the moon would be on the 'other' side of the earth), provides further evidence that what occurred was something other than an eclipse of the sun. Just what it was no one can say for sure, just that from recorded historical sources there was a strange darkness during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. From God's perspective, it surely was a time of mourning for His only begotten son.

Jesus once said, "I am the light of the world." So it shouldn't be surprising that during his death there might be a time of darkness over the land.

REFERENCE: McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Vol. 1). Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville. 1972. (end)

So there you have it. The prophecy, the Biblical fulfillment, and extra-Biblical confirmation.

What are your thoughts about Jesus' miracles and how do they fit into your theory?

God bless!

[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" or blended into 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...

[bernee51]

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.

They believed it to be the truth - that is the issue here.

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.

Your reference site was a re-hash of apologia I have read many times. Perhaps you could have a look at this this.

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

Joseph Campbell wrote widely on mythology and mysticism and it's influences on the development of the religions. He wrote: ...Paul, a jew who spoke eloquent Greek, was torn between the monotheistic culture of Judaism and the non-dualistic Greek tradition. ...he (Paul) real;ized that the catastrophic kiling of this young inspired Jewish rabbi could be read as an enactment of the death and resurrection of the Greek mystery hero"

[Easyrider]

They believed it to be the truth - that is the issue here.

I think the issue is that they wouldn't die for what they knew was a lie (if the Biblical accounts of Jesus were made up)

Perhaps you could have a look at this this.

Thanks for the link. I read it but wasn't impressed. Infidels.org has a lot of mistruths in it. I prefer answeringinfidels.

Joseph Campbell wrote widely on mythology and mysticism and it's influences on the development of the religions. He wrote: ...Paul, a jew who spoke eloquent Greek, was torn between the monotheistic culture of Judaism and the non-dualistic Greek tradition. ...he (Paul) real;ized that the catastrophic kiling of this young inspired Jewish rabbi could be read as an enactment of the death and resurrection of the Greek mystery hero"

Sounds more like a theory to me about what he perceived Paul might have believed.

In real life Paul preached Jesus Christ as Lord and resurrected Savior, not some mythical entity.

Take care!

[bernee51]

They believed it to be the truth - that is the issue here.

I think the issue is that they wouldn't die for what they knew was a lie (if the Biblical accounts of Jesus were made up)

And if the didn't know it was a confabulation....?

Thanks for the link. I read it but wasn't impressed. Infidels.org has a lot of mistruths in it. I prefer answeringinfidels.

Whaterver floats your boat (or supports your beliefs)

Joseph Campbell wrote widely on mythology and mysticism and it's influences on the development of the religions. He wrote: ...Paul, a jew who spoke eloquent Greek, was torn between the monotheistic culture of Judaism and the non-dualistic Greek tradition. ...he (Paul) real;ized that the catastrophic kiling of this young inspired Jewish rabbi could be read as an enactment of the death and resurrection of the Greek mystery hero"

Sounds more like a theory to me about what he perceived Paul might have believed.

In real life Paul preached Jesus Christ as Lord and resurrected Savior, not some mythical entity.

Cambell was a staunch catholic who, for the first 25 years of his life, believed in 'concreteized' version of the life of Christ. His extensicve research of christianity and other religions led him to the belief that, not only was it a mythology, but that mythology is in fact more powerful than the literal.

Take care!

You too!

[Easyrider]

Me: I think the issue is that they wouldn't die for what they knew was a lie (if the Biblical accounts of Jesus were made up).

You: And if the(y) didn't know it was a confabulation....?

My belief is that the disciples knew Jesus pretty well after 3 1/2 years, so they were able to discern truth from a 'confabulation.'

Cheers...

[bernee51]

The prophecy, the Biblical fulfillment, and extra-Biblical confirmation.

The prophecy: prophecy has long been a feature of Judaism - the coming messiah is still coming. That someone would associate the occurance with extraordinary stories is not surprising.

The fulfillment: It is also not surprising that a writer (I believe Matthew is to have been written some 40 years after the alleged death of the Christ) would use ancient prophecies to add some validity to his story.

The extra-biblical conirmation: In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century, the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and the actual contents of the text or its date cannot be confirmed. It is possible that Thallus was merely repeating what was told to him by Christians, or that the passage which Africanus cites is a later interpolation. Outside of the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the contemporary literature. This is very surprising, given the effect these sorts of events would presumably have had on the populace.

This confirmation was written a couple of hundred years after the supposed occurence and is, in turn, most likely based on hearsay.

What are your thoughts about Jesus' miracles and how do they fit into your theory?

The gospel stories, miracles included, are in the main, mythology and metaphor.

Christianity - like all religions - is an invention of man.

God bless!

God has blessed me with his absence - may he do so for you.

[Easyrider]

The fulfillment: It is also not surprising that a writer (I believe Matthew is to have been written some 40 years after the alleged death of the Christ) would use ancient prophecies to add some validity to his story.

More likely they were an integral part of the story to begin with.

The extra-biblical conirmation: In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century, the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and the actual contents of the text or its date cannot be confirmed.

Indeed, Thallus' works are non-extant. However, there's no compelling evidence to suggest that what Africanus and Origen wrote concerning Thallus was in any way contrived.

Outside of the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the contemporary literature. This is very surprising, given the effect these sorts of events would presumably have had on the populace.

The accounts referenced were extra-biblical. In fact, the entire New Testament itself was not considered "Canon" at the time, but were simply independent historical / doctrinal accounts of what occurred or what was taught.

The gospel stories, miracles included, are in the main, mythology and metaphor. Christianity - like all religions - is an invention of man.

Ahh, now we have a personal opinion which is contradicted by the New Testament works, etc.

Cheers, bernee!

[bernee51]

The gospel stories, miracles included, are in the main, mythology and metaphor. Christianity - like all religions - is an invention of man.

Ahh, now we have a personal opinion which is contradicted by the New Testament works, etc.

Cheers, bernee!

Personal opinion based on an assessment of not just the NT but many of the so called sacred scriptures. Are the Vedas historical? Is the Bhagvad Gita? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Why should the NT be seen in any different light?

[Easyrider]

The gospel stories, miracles included, are in the main, mythology and metaphor. Christianity - like all religions - is an invention of man.

Ahh, now we have a personal opinion which is contradicted by the New Testament works, etc.

Cheers, bernee!

Personal opinion based on an assessment of not just the NT but many of the so called sacred scriptures. Are the Vedas historical? Is the Bhagvad Gita? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Why should the NT be seen in any different light?

Fulfilled prophecy for one. Multiple confirmation for another by identifiable and credible eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, Peter, James, Jude) or investigators (Luke).

Personally, I think it all boils down to the resurrection, which is the crux of the matter. If Christ is not risen, it's all shattered. If I were a real skeptic, I'd go after the resurrection. So far, no one has been able to make a real dent in it, from what I've seen.