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]

The Anvil that Has Worn Out Many Hammers

A classic case of the fallacy of Ad Populum. see also Appeal to the People or Appeal to Common Belief.

A fallacy? Isn't the Bible the all time # 1 best seller in the world?

[McCulloch]

The Anvil that Has Worn Out Many Hammers

A classic case of the fallacy of Ad Populum. see also Appeal to the People or Appeal to Common Belief.

A fallacy? Isn't the Bible the all time # 1 best seller in the world?

Does that make it true? That is the whole point of this fallacy. Being popular does not make something true. If the Qu'ran became more popular than the Bible, would that all of a sudden make it true?

[Easyrider]

The Anvil that Has Worn Out Many Hammers

A classic case of the fallacy of Ad Populum. see also Appeal to the People or Appeal to Common Belief.

A fallacy? Isn't the Bible the all time # 1 best seller in the world?

Does that make it true? That is the whole point of this fallacy. Being popular does not make something true. If the Qu'ran became more popular than the Bible, would that all of a sudden make it true?

Nope.

But in the Bible's case, it is true!

[McCulloch]

But in the Bible's case, it is true!

That is your opinion. You have tried to support your opinion with the logical fallacy called Ad Populum. Do you have better evidence than that?

[Cathar1950]

Porno sells does that make it God's word?

Here is one that claims MM wrote John.
Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?
[url=http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html]Here[/url]

[Easyrider]

But in the Bible's case, it is true!

That is your opinion. You have tried to support your opinion with the logical fallacy called Ad Populum. Do you have better evidence than that?

First, I don't think any amount of evidence on earth could sway you, but I could be wrong on that.

Feel free to read my prior posts, though, for a glimpse of that evidence.

[1John2_26]

Easyrider wrote:

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.


Bernee wrote: 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.

From Acts written by Luke:

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.

bernee51 wrote:
Easyrider wrote:

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?

Many people are willing to die for what they believe is the truth. Not many are willing to die for what they absolutely know is a lie.

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.

Paul wrote to a rich slave owning Roman named Philemon. Still an elite individual.

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"?

Saying Paul created Christianity is absurd. It's argument for arguing's sake.

Code: Select all

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.

Greek was the common language of many places. Writing in Greek/Latin was prudent and appropriate. There is Aramaic versions of the Gospels.


Back to top

Quote from 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.

Does anyone know where this is located in a New Testament?

I know this one in Mark 12:

The Widow's Offering

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.

42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,worth only a fraction of a penny.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

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.

Very similar opinion of the Sanhedrin that Jesus had.

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.

That got Christians killed. The allegation is absurd.

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?

It is a Bible within the Bible. Many anti-Christian "scholars" have many opinions about the authenticity of New Testament writings. You would have thought that a power hungry group of poor Jews would have opened up their new religion to everyone without any requirements. The Jewish-Christians infuriated a lot of people they could have won over by just fitting in. They would have gotten richer and less dead by writing diversity and tolerance into their new religious ideology. They didn't. Why?

Quote:
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.

Pretty loving caring about and for other people's souls. No need really.

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.

Many educated people think the Greek philosophers were pretty impressive individuals.

BTW, why do you think the NT is written in Greek?

What was the dominant language in the area where the early Christians lived? I think "duh" is appropriate here.

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.

And that is a bad thing how? The Bible is written in many languages now. Should we send Aramiac Bibles to the Bronx New York Churches?

The Gospel WAS a conspiracy though. That is why the Trinity is an doctrine of orthodoxy.

Who caught the last trian for the coast?

[Lotan]

Feel free to read my prior posts, though, for a glimpse of that evidence.

"Glimpse" may not be the right word here. Something like "illusion" would be more accurate. Your 'evidence', so far, consists of late, unreliable, contradictory traditions about the alleged martyrdom of the apostles, and a circular argument that the NT is proof of itself.

[Easyrider]

Feel free to read my prior posts, though, for a glimpse of that evidence.

"Glimpse" may not be the right word here. Something like "illusion" would be more accurate. Your 'evidence', so far, consists of late, unreliable, contradictory traditions about the alleged martyrdom of the apostles, and a circular argument that the NT is proof of itself.

<flush>

You can't see the forest for the trees, Lotan.

[Lotan]

<flush>

Not so fast, Easyrider! You might need that for your next post…

In the absence of any reasonable argument for the claim that the NT authors were "putting their lives on the line for for an alleged lie…" I thought it would be fun to reference a few of the reasons that the 'Acts of the Apostles' does not provide credible evidence:

The existence of the 'Twelve Apostles' is a fiction. Their travels and martyrdom are the pious inventions of Christian apologists. ANALYSIS OF WRITINGS ATTRIBUTED TO LUKE by Alfred Loisy…

"Once more we have to remind the reader that the Twelve were never apostles even in the proper meaning of the word, least of all in the outstanding and exclusive sense given to that vocable by the writer who recast the two books to Theophilus. The Twelve were the members of the directing committee charged with ordering the affairs of the group of Hebrew believers whom they had recruited by privately conducted propaganda in Jerusalem (cf. The Birth of the Christian Religion, 109-112). There is not the least evidence that they were ever itinerant preachers, and never did they regard themselves as commanded to evangelize the world. But, after the lapse of a considerable time, when the need arose to combat the claims of the party which was proclaiming the apostolic pre-eminence of Paul, whose writings it was guarding and amplifying, certain circles of Eastern believers were at pains to exhibit the Twelve as the only true apostles, as the true founders of the Church and the guarantors of tradition, and as instituted for that eminence by the Christ himself. In this picture Peter assumes the role of chief while Paul is subordinated to these great apostles who, all things considered, are, in that capacity, nothing more than a figment erected into a tradition (cf. supra, p. 140). This fiction our editor introduces at the outset of his work because, while it is the first word of his interpolations, it will also be the last word of the interpolated book."

The author of 'Acts' relied on earlier sources.
THE WORK OF LUKE by Edgar Goodspeed…

"We have seen that the idea of writing such a work as Luke-Acts on the beginnings of the Christian movement could hardly have occurred to anyone until the Greek mission was a marked success and a great future had begun to open before the Christian faith. And wherever we test the book, it gives unmistakable signs of lateness of date…"

Even Bible editors will admit that an objective history was not Luke’s primary concern.
New American Bible Introduction…

"Finally, an apologetic concern is evident throughout Acts. By stressing the continuity between Judaism and Christianity (Acts 13:16-41; 23:6-9; 24:10-21; 26:2-23), Luke argues that Christianity is deserving of the same toleration accorded Judaism by Rome. Part of Paul's defense before Roman authorities is to show that Christianity is not a disturber of the peace of the Roman Empire (Acts 24:5, 12-13; 25:7-8). Moreover, when he stands before Roman authorities, he is declared innocent of any crime against the empire (Acts 18:13-15; 23:29; 25:25-27; 26:31-32). Luke tells his story with the hope that Christianity will be treated as fairly."

One of the foremost authorities on textual criticism agrees, as do many others.
From Bible.org Acts: Introduction, Outline, and Argument by Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D....

"It is our contention that Acts is both historical and apologetic, that Luke wrote the work both for Theophilus (as an apologetic piece) and for secondary readers (both for apologetic and historical reasons). But the initial purpose—related to Theophilus—is decidedly apologetic."

'Acts' has been tampered with.
An Introduction to the New Testament by Richard Heard…
"The problem of the original text of Acts is of great interest and some importance. The text has survived in two main forms, which show such considerable variations from each other as to suggest that there once existed two different editions of the book, and raise the question, ‘ Which of these two editions is the original one ?’"
"The English Authorised and Revised Versions for the most part follow the text which from the fourth century A.D. onwards has the support of the great majority of the best manuscripts. On the other hand there is enough manuscript evidence to prove the existence as early as the second century A.D. of a type of text which contains a great number of variations, additions, and omissions. This latter text is often called the Western text, although it was known very early in the East as well, and sometimes from the name of the manuscript which is one of the chief witnesses to its existence, Codex Bezae (now in the University Library at Cambridge), the Bezan text."
"There is good reason for thinking that in the first century or so of its existence the text of Acts was treated by the scribes who copied it with some freedom, especially as Acts seems to have circulated for the most part separately from the Gospel of Luke."

'Acts' is not a reliable history.
A Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Robert M. Grant…
"Furthermore, it should be stated that he was almost certainly unaware of the modern distinction between ‘faith’ and ‘history’. In his view faith and history worked together, and one way of propagating the faith was to state what the history had been. This is not to say that he was always reliably informed, or that -- any more than modern historians -- he always presented a severely factual account of events. It does mean that he believed that the events, if represented accurately and in order, at least pointed in the direction of the Christian gospel."
"The text of the book has been transmitted in two quite different forms. (1) Most of the Greek manuscripts, including the old uncials, and most later versions contain the form of Acts which is translated in English New Testaments. (2) On the other hand, in Codex Bezac (sixth century) we find what looks like another edition of the book, full of alterations and additions. Something like this edition was used by the earlier Church Fathers and is reflected in the old Latin and Syriac versions."
"A notable example of revision is to be found in the report of the ‘apostolic decree’ in Acts 15:20 and 29 (also 21:25). Here the original decree was probably concerned with Levitical purity. The editor of the expanded version dropped a reference to ‘things strangled’ and twice added the ‘golden rule’, thus giving the impression that the decree was concerned with moral requirements."
"Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history, and most of them have been raised in the commentary of Ernst Haenchen (1957; 3rd ed., 1959). In the first fifteen chapters, which deal primarily with the church of Jerusalem, Luke is producing an edifying sketch rather than a history. The speeches and sermons are based on the Septuagint, not on the Hebrew Bible, and therefore reflect Luke’s interests, not those of the early community. His ‘statistics’ are impossible; Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone, and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand (Acts 4:4). Something is clearly wrong with Luke’s chronology, for he has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke(5:36-7)."
"The most important difficulty in the early part of Acts has to do with the conversion of Cornelius, described as a centurion of the Italian cohort (10.1). But during the reign of Herod Agrippa (d. 44.), no Roman troops were stationed in his territory. Cornelius is really a stock figure, probably modeled upon the anonymous centurion of Luke 7:1-10. The whole story has been elaborated by Luke in an effort to show that the church of Jerusalem was responsible for the gentile mission. This mission did not involve circumcision (10:45; 11:18). How, then, could the question of circumcision be discussed anew at the ‘council of Jerusalem’? How could the Jerusalem Christians have forgotten the story of Cornelius (though Peter alludes to it in Acts 15.7)? In Haenchen’s view the apostolic council is ‘an imaginative construction and corresponds to no historical reality’."
"The parts of Acts which deal primarily with Paul are not much better."
"Luke makes Paul’s relations with Jerusalem much closer than they really were."
"He tries to give an impression of familiarity with Roman officials and their procedures, but Paul’s ‘trial’ is incoherently presented."
"Even the story of Paul’s final journey to Rome, including the narrative about the shipwreck, is full of theological motives and historical difficulties."
"This is to say that while the traditions which reached Luke may have been generally, or largely, historical, in some respects they were not, and his own use of them did not often increase their historical value. It is also to say that just as the writings of Greek and Roman historians cannot be accepted at face value by the student of history, so the book of Acts has to be analysed not only internally but also in relation to the Pauline epistles. Its primary value lies in its witness to the picture of the life of the early Church which was developed a decade or so after the fall of Jerusalem and the deaths of the principal apostles."