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.

[Lotan]

This is the "Good teacher" theory which is a favorite of Muslims and some Jews.

No, it's not. That is just your strawman. Jesus was more than a teacher. He was a kind of rebel.

Since miracles are impossible, (which we know because God does not exist), he must have been ONLY a good teacher. Nothing else would be possible.

You said it, not me. Anything is possible. Miracles are unlikely.

Yet he somehow is revered as a God less than 5 years later.

Really? How do you figure?

Now this man who was a good teacher somehow angers the sanheidren enough to have them accuse him of claiming Godship and have hime killed by the Romans.

If his teachings were considered heretical (you know, healing on the Sabbath and such) then the Sanhedrin could very well have wanted to have him executed, but I think that part of the story was greatly exaggerated if not invented entirely. Since he was crucified rather than stoned it is more likely that the Romans would want to execute him simply for having a following, if nothing else. Preaching the 'Kingdom of God' would be a direct insult to to Caesar. If he did in fact cause a ruckus at the temple, then he was a dead duck either way.

So something must have happened.

Duh.

But since the men spreading lies (back to the conspiracy) can not be trusted, it must not have been that he ever claimed to be God. After all this would fit in with the Gospel conspiracy but would contradict him being a good teacher, since no good teacher would ever claim to be God to the point of being killed.

I have no idea what you are even talking about.

Ignorance is better than accepting a plausible theory (the Gospel story) right?

Maybe to you it is. The gospel story is not plausible. It's full of miracles, which are by definition, extraordinary events. Ordinary events (like people developing legends) are plausible. Extraordinary events (like people rising from the grave) are implausible.

His followers are spreading lies that he performed miracles. We know this based on their writings, the writings of Paul and even to some extent the later Jewish historians.

Paul records none of Jesus miracles, with the exception of the resurrection which he describes in spiritual, heavenly terms (as opposed to physical, earthly ones). The other NT authors knew little about Jesus' life and ascribed miracles to him based on their belief in OT scripture. It is also possible that he was a healer and performed exorcisms but that the accounts of his healings are exaggerated and interpreted theologically.

After all why would a good teacher be mistaken for doing miracles if NO ONE was claiming it.

What you have yet to demonstrate is whether anyone of Jesus' contemporaries was claiming it. Even if that were the case, there were many others for whom similar claims were made. (ie. Vespasian)

Now the problem, why would the people of Jerusalem, who would have known Jesus as a teacher and nothing more, suddenly believe his followers about a HUGE miracle as well as all of the other miracles they were claiming he did right in front of everyone?

Beats me. Since I'm not claiming that any of this occurred I don't really feel compelled to answer. People believe all sorts of things, and by the time the books of the NT were written Jerusalem was rubble.

This doesn't work logically.

You got that right!

These men and women, the very first converts from within the people of the town where Jesus did a lot of what he did, should have known for an absolute fact, that Jesus

a) was not Christ
b) never performed a miracle
c) never claimed to be God
d) never rose (ie the body would be there)
e) was nothing more than a good and wise man

Except that you don't really know what the "very first converts" believed, because there is so little record of them. In fact, it is probably inaccurate to call the "converts" at this point. What eventually became Christianity could be described at this time to be a mere difference in opinion about Judahism. Also Jesus' career in Jerusalem was very short lived. You would have to look to Galilee as the place where Jesus "did a lot of what he did". As for your list...
a) some might have believed it, but that wouldn't make it so either.
b) miracles are in the eye of the beholder.
c) there is no indication that he did claim to be god. There is no indication that the Ebionites (James, Peter, Mary et al) thought that he was. Neither did Paul.
d) Jesus' resurrection was one of those metaphors that you guys are always talking about. It shouldn't be taken literally. Jesus did 'appear' to a lot of people, they just happened to be in a trance at the time. Like Paul. The 'empty tomb' was a later evangelical invention, as was much of the passion story including the atonement!
e) again, that's a matter of individual interpretation. If you can believe that we are all made in God's image, then you can believe that God was 'in Jesus'. No hocus-pocus necessary.

How could Christianity have dug in so deeply and quickly among such people with such outrageous and obviously false lies being spread?

As before, there's no reason to believe that the Jerusalem bunch practiced Christianity as it is understood today, or that it was necessarily all that popular in Jerusalem.

1) Why the authorities killed the man while claiming that he was claiming to be God/King?

While I don't personally think that Jesus claimed to be the messiah, that doesn't mean that others might have believed that he was, especially since he was preaching that the 'Kingdom of God' was at hand. The "King of the Jews" bit was, if true, a Roman joke.

2) Why the people of Jerusalem would have believe the apostles when they came in after Jesus death claiming Jesus did all sorts of miracles among them and then he rose from the dead.

That's 'conspiracy theory' BS. I'm certainly not suggesting that the "apostles" made these claims. (Not that they could not have though, there were all sorts of messianic wackos back then, and a lot of people died for their belief in them.)

This last statement

The writings contained in the NT are entirely from diaspora Jews who never knew him and created pseudobiographical accounts of his life based on earlier traditions interpreted through their understanding of OT scripture (among other things

A) goes against the consensus of MOST of the scholars I know.

Yeah, but you think guys like Geisler or Strobel are scholars. Try Crossan. He's one of my favorites. That doesn't mean that I buy every argument that he's ever made, but he's certainly thought-provoking. This is a good one Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

B) Would be very hard to prove unless you have found some new evidence I am unaware of.

Could be the same evidence, but a different interpretation. In order to subscribe to the 'It's all true' theory you have to believe that while every other Jewish scribe employed midrashic exegesis, the the NT authors did not.

C) is refuted by Paul in his letters...

The ones that were actually written by him, or the others?

D)Seems to be more of an opinion which fits what you wish to think rather than evidence supporting a viewpoint.

There you go again. You have absolutely no idea what I "wish to think". Are you capable of debating without the ad hominem arguments? They get tiresome.

E) And most importantly, seems to fit in with the conspiracy theory which you yourself said was bogus.

I guess it "seems to fit" to you. I've pointed out the differences already.
............................

First - I think I am justified in my claim that God is not in your box of possibilities since you are an atheist.

You are not justified to define me. I already stated my position on this...

...I never discount it (the existence of God) as a possibility...

...so deal with it.

After all you are the one who wrote ...............

A supernatural explanation is no explanation at all.

Since a supernatural explanation can't be falsified you can make up absolutely any explanation that you want and it will be just as 'true' as any other supernatural explanation. You say 'gnomes', I say 'pixies'; who can say which is correct?

You accuse me of putting words into you mouth???!?!?!?! Incredible.

Second - I never insulted your intelligence. If You think I did then plainly pull out a quote from my writings which suggests I think you are stupid.

I never said that you think that I'm "stupid", so please don't put words in my mouth. (Why do you do that? ) I said that you insulted my intelligence by suggesting that I "start with the assumption that God does not exist" or that I "removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question". This is a charge of bias and plain ad hominem. Stop it.

Nor do I. However, like easyrider, I find it much easier to believe the Gospel story over a theory of conspiracy based on lies or extreme miscommunication between hundreds of people within 5 years of a mans life.

I asked before, but you didn't reply - Where are you getting this "5 years" thing from?

The SIMPLIST explanation, if God is allowed to be possible, is that the story is true.

This is a circular argument. If God is actually Vishnu, then the story isn't true. Or maybe God is YHWH, but the story isn't true anyway. The simplest explanation is that it is a story.

We are talking about miracles which never happened...

Prophecy historicized.

...a missing body after only 3 days...

Pious invention.

...and a man who never did anything wrong yet was executed as a criminal.

Do you deny that Jesus of Nazareth had a following? That was enough to get him killed. Do you deny that he 'cleansed' the temple? That was enough to get you crucified.

These are pretty hard to explain away logically unless you allow for the possibility (however remote) that these men, who were committed to loving their neighbors and telling the truth, might actually be telling the truth.

Circular argument (again).

[achilles12604]

achilles12604 wrote:
This is the "Good teacher" theory which is a favorite of Muslims and some Jews.

No, it's not. That is just your strawman. Jesus was more than a teacher. He was a kind of rebel.

This theory is taught by Muslims. Jesus was a great teacher but was not God's son. Why are you fighting with me on this? Isn't this accurate? Doesn't the quran describe Jesus as a prophet of Allah?

achilles12604 wrote:
Yet he somehow is revered as a God less than 5 years later.

Really? How do you figure

Paul's letters dated within 15-20 years of the events in churches far from Jerusalem. If you consider the time it takes for Christianity to spread, be taught and then form churches, 5 years is very generous for the belief that Jesus was a god.

achilles12604 wrote:
Now this man who was a good teacher somehow angers the sanheidren enough to have them accuse him of claiming Godship and have hime killed by the Romans.

If his teachings were considered heretical (you know, healing on the Sabbath and such) then the Sanhedrin could very well have wanted to have him executed, but I think that part of the story was greatly exaggerated if not invented entirely. Since he was crucified rather than stoned it is more likely that the Romans would want to execute him simply for having a following, if nothing else. Preaching the 'Kingdom of God' would be a direct insult to to Caesar. If he did in fact cause a ruckus at the temple, then he was a dead duck either way.

I suppose that is plausible. It requires that all of the Gospels and acts and most of the letters of Paul be ignored, but it is plausible if you do this. I doubt that the Romans would execute a man simply for having a following. The biggest blow to this idea, that I can think of right now, is John. After all they did not care about John the Baptist and he was even more zealous a Jew than Jesus. Jesus after all supposedly encouraged paying taxes to ceaser and submitting to authorities. Other men had followings and were left alone. Why Kill the one who was not even a zealot against Rome and leave the others alone?

These are factors which do not quite fit with your theory. But then nothing is perfect.

Maybe to you it is. The gospel story is not plausible. It's full of miracles, which are by definition, extraordinary events. Ordinary events (like people developing legends) are plausible. Extraordinary events (like people rising from the grave) are implausible.

]

This is on the verge of argueing in a circle. Miracles are implausible. Therefore we can be sure God does not exist. Since God does not exist, miracles are implausible.

But what if God did exist? Then the Gospels would be a fairly simple explaination of the facts.

Paul records none of Jesus miracles, with the exception of the resurrection which he describes in spiritual, heavenly terms (as opposed to physical, earthly ones). The other NT authors knew little about Jesus' life and ascribed miracles to him based on their belief in OT scripture. It is also possible that he was a healer and performed exorcisms but that the accounts of his healings are exaggerated and interpreted theologically.

You are a fairly well versed debator so I hope you have a good explaination for what I am going to say here. Line by line . . .

1) Paul records none of Jesus miracles, with the exception of the resurrection which he describes in spiritual, heavenly terms (as opposed to physical, earthly ones).

This is not really very accurate. I pulled a number of verses which show that Paul thinks of Jesus resurection as both spiritual (as you pointed out) as well as physical.

Romans 1:3 "Who as to his human nature was a decendent of David, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead."

This is pretty clear cut. Paul spells out his human nature and then immediatly justifies calling him the son of God because of his resurrection from the dead.

There are others if you wish for me to present them as well but the point has been made.

Also Paul refers to the other apostels teaching and spreading the word of God. This means that the Gospel stories were alive and kicking as early as Paul's letters even though they were not written down yet. Hence more to show Jesus followers were speaking in terms of miracles. After all why try to recruit a religion and then change your story drasticly to include miracles 15 years later? This doesn't fit with logic.


2) The other NT authors knew little about Jesus' life and ascribed miracles to him based on their belief in OT scripture

First, Mark was writing for Peter, one of the main disciples. So I am not sure how you can even make the claim you did and still claim logical coherence. Second, the New Testament writers were Jews. Jewish religion has only one resurrection, the final resurrection when everyone will be raised. Therefore, they would have never found any idea of raising one person individually from the OT as you claim they did. It just isn't there to copy. This idea would also be very strange to them since none of the prophets were raised, why should Jesus, or Lazarus or the Girl?

This being said, with the Jewish OT teachings in mind, your statement doesn't really make much sense, even if the writers didn't know Jesus, which archeology (mark writing for peter) has shown they probably did.


Besides all of this, even if you are 100% correct in this statement, why would the early christians convert to a religion based on a dead man who never did anything special? Again it doesn't make sense.



3) It is also possible that he was a healer and performed exorcisms but that the accounts of his healings are exaggerated and interpreted theologically.

Exorcisms not being spiritual in nature? This is almost a contradiction in terms. By definition, exorcisms have to be interpreted theologically. Besides, this implies a supernatural. If the supernatural is possible, then why are the stories implausible?

Besides, it is not very likely that the stories of his healings would have advanced so far into legend unless there were a ton of them and they were pretty impressive to begin with. After all a man who does one minor healing (which again would imply the supernatural) is not likely to draw the attention Jesus did. Many men were claiming the work miracles. Josephus lists at least 4 in the Antiquities who lived between 100bc and 50AD. He also lists their miracles. Yet they are lost in history while Jesus has been given credit for dozens of miracles in many different cities and has spread all over the known world. Which one's miracles do you think were really impressive and which one's were not?

What you have yet to demonstrate is whether anyone of Jesus' contemporaries was claiming it. Even if that were the case, there were many others for whom similar claims were made. (ie. Vespasian)

Actually this second sentence give us some idea that Jesus miracles were much more exciting and powerful than his counterparts. Inadvertant evidence supporting the extent of his miracels. As for the first sentence,

1) we have record of Jesus miracles starting around 55AD in Mark
2) Josephus makes reference to them
3) Paul refers to the other apostles teaching the Jews. Some of these apostes later wrote their stories so we have a good idea they included miracles.
4) The author of Acts (luke most likely), wrote that Peter pleaded with the people to believe based on the miracles the people had supposedly already seen.

There are a lot of references to Miracles very early on. And once again, legend can develop, but I have serious doubts that miracles would just POOF appear in the stories within a few decades if they had NOTHING to substanciate them.







I was just reading your next posted section when I read something that I seriously think you included just to see my reaction. This claim is so far outside the realm of reason that it must be for show.

c) there is no indication that he did claim to be god. There is no indication that the Ebionites (James, Peter, Mary et al) thought that he was. Neither did Paul

If you honestly think that Paul did not think of Jesus as God, then I am at a loss as to how to debat with you. I have no further need to debate since any even keeled person who heard you say this, then read Paul's letters, would conclude that you have lost your mind, or else you never opened the bible to look and see what was actually written. Paul writes plenty about Jesus the son of God, the redeemer, the lord of all, etc.

If you can make a statement like that, then wow, I do not need to refute you. You refuted yourself. This also makes me wonder how many of your unsupported doubts are really just inserted for effect. I have respect for your intellect Lotan. Hence, I am sure that this claim was to get a reaction from me.

[Lotan]

This theory is taught by Muslims. Jesus was a great teacher but was not God's son.

I think that similarities to other theories are inevitable, but there are differences, too. Jesus was more than just a teacher, his aim was to turn the world order on it's head. Also, if you believe tht there is a god, then Jesus is the son of god (as is everyone else). At least some of his followers thought so

Why are you fighting with me on this? Isn't this accurate? Doesn't the quran describe Jesus as a prophet of Allah?

For once you get me. The theories of Muslims and Jews are developed with their own particular theologies in mind. I prefer to concentrate on the historical and then draw conclusions, theological or otherwise. Whatever the Quran says has no bearing on the historical Jesus.

Paul's letters dated within 15-20 years of the events in churches far from Jerusalem. If you consider the time it takes for Christianity to spread, be taught and then form churches, 5 years is very generous for the belief that Jesus was a god.

Paul didn't think Jesus was god, he thought he was 'Christ'. Messianic expectation, numerous 'god-fearers', and Roman oppression were all catalysts for the very early churches, but it is doubtful that anyone believed that Jesus was YHWH. James continued to worship at temple, for example.

It requires that all of the Gospels and acts and most of the letters of Paul be ignored, but it is plausible if you do this.

The gospel polemic against the Sanhedrin was written after the temple was safely in ruins, not only does it make the Judahist orthodoxy look bad for failing to receive Jesus' message, but it let's the Romans (who are still a political reality) off the hook for his execution somewhat.

I doubt that the Romans would execute a man simply for having a following.

You need to read some history then. The Romans were practiced imperialists. Anyone preaching the 'Kingdom of God' (as opposed to the kingdom of Caesar) and attracting a following would be guilty of sedition and dealt with harshly. There is no shortage of example from Jesus' time of apocalyptic 'prophets' leading their followers out into the desert to re-create Moses leading the Israelites through the wilderness, across the Jordan, and into the promised land, only to be slaughtered by Roman troops and their leaders crucified.

The biggest blow to this idea, that I can think of right now, is John. After all they did not care about John the Baptist and he was even more zealous a Jew than Jesus.

Bring me his head! John didn't end up so well, did he? That bit about Herodias is an apologetic tale intended to have the same effect as the 'Sanhedrin conspiracy', that is to remove somewhat the guilt of John's death from Herod (Rome's proxy).

Jesus after all supposedly encouraged paying taxes to ceaser and submitting to authorities.

"Supposedly".

Other men had followings and were left alone.

Name two.

Why Kill the one who was not even a zealot against Rome and leave the others alone?

Even though the gospels are written with a pro-Roman bias, there is still evidence that Jesus was something of a "zealot against Rome". Try reading Mark as a metaphor for occupation...

"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine.
And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. Mark 5:9-17

The very idea of the coming of the 'Kingdom of God' (apocalypse) was antithetical to Roman rule.

This is on the verge of argueing in a circle. Miracles are implausible. Therefore we can be sure God does not exist. Since God does not exist, miracles are implausible.

No it's not. I'm saying that the word 'plausible' should be used to describe ordinary events and the word 'implausible' should be used to describe extraordinary events. The existence (or not) of God is beside the point.

But what if God did exist? Then the Gospels would be a fairly simple explaination of the facts.

No, as I have already told you, even if God did exist, that is no proof that the gospel stories are real. It is a circular argument to suppose that the god described in the gospels is proof of the gospels themselves. God may exist and have a nature totally unlike that described in the Bible or any other religious writings.

This is not really very accurate. I pulled a number of verses which show that Paul thinks of Jesus resurection as both spiritual (as you pointed out) as well as physical.

Romans 1:3 "Who as to his human nature was a decendent of David, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead."

I see nothing in that verse that demands a physical resurrection. Also, Paul is saying that Jesus became "Son of God by his resurrection" which is at odds with the gospels that say he became "Son of God" either at his birth, or his baptism (take your pick).

There are others if you wish for me to present them as well but the point has been made.

I don't think the point has been made at all. Present another verse if you think it will help, preferably from Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians, or 1 Thessalonians. The others are likely pseudonymous.

Also Paul refers to the other apostels teaching and spreading the word of God. This means that the Gospel stories were alive and kicking as early as Paul's letters even though they were not written down yet.

No, it means that something was "alive and kicking" that Paul considered to be the "word of God". Paul makes no mention of anything remotely resembling the gospel stories with the exception of the agape feast ritual...

"Paul's letters, written around 55-65 CE, fail to mention any Gospel miracle, act or major event concerning Christ's life, apart from the Eucharist and some vague references to the crucifixion and resurrection. He also fails to accurately quote any of Christ's teachings, as depicted in the Gospels. Clement, writing some 30 years later, does little better than Paul. While quoting extensively from the Old Testament, and offering numerous examples to illustrate his points from the lives of OT prophets and saints, Clement, like Paul, ignores the amazing life of Jesus Christ." -from here.

After all why try to recruit a religion and then change your story drasticly to include miracles 15 years later? This doesn't fit with logic.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that is illogical for legends to develop about important people after their death? Especially among their faithful followers?

First, Mark was writing for Peter, one of the main disciples.

So the story goes...

So I am not sure how you can even make the claim you did and still claim logical coherence.

The author of Mark may have been a disciple of Peter, but it's not that simple...

"The NAB introduction says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day." -from here.

Second, the New Testament writers were Jews. Jewish religion has only one resurrection, the final resurrection when everyone will be raised. Therefore, they would have never found any idea of raising one person individually from the OT as you claim they did. It just isn't there to copy. This idea would also be very strange to them since none of the prophets were raised, why should Jesus, or Lazarus or the Girl?

That's actually a good point. The Lazarus story is a metaphor for the restoration of Israel (apocalypse) as well as a sign of the coming Kingdom. It's symbolism. Midrash was important tool for the evangelists but it wasn't the only one.

This being said, with the Jewish OT teachings in mind, your statement doesn't really make much sense, even if the writers didn't know Jesus, which archeology (mark writing for peter) has shown they probably did.

OK, what archaeology?

Besides all of this, even if you are 100% correct in this statement, why would the early christians convert to a religion based on a dead man who never did anything special? Again it doesn't make sense.

Who says he "never did anything special"? He must have been pretty special. Mohammed and Buddha were special too. I think that you're conflating "special" with 'supernatural'. There is a difference.

Exorcisms not being spiritual in nature? This is almost a contradiction in terms. By definition, exorcisms have to be interpreted theologically. Besides, this implies a supernatural. If the supernatural is possible, then why are the stories implausible?

I was agreeing with you right up to the "supernatural" part. Exorcisms and faith healing are often effective and do benefit from a theological context. The 'placebo effect' is a well recognized phenomenon. That does NOT necessarily imply that it is supernatural, unless one is of a superstitios bent and applies supernatural explanations to everything not yet fully desvribed by science. If the patients believed that Jesus had the power to heal them, then their belief would be enough, at least in some cases, to cause a beneficial result.

Besides, it is not very likely that the stories of his healings would have advanced so far into legend unless there were a ton of them and they were pretty impressive to begin with.

Says who? Legends are known to spread, not condense.

After all a man who does one minor healing (which again would imply the supernatural) is not likely to draw the attention Jesus did. Many men were claiming the work miracles. Josephus lists at least 4 in the Antiquities who lived between 100bc and 50AD. He also lists their miracles. Yet they are lost in history while Jesus has been given credit for dozens of miracles in many different cities and has spread all over the known world. Which one's miracles do you think were really impressive and which one's were not?

They were likely all impressive. Ever see David Blaine? Now he is impressive. I doubt that he is a deity though. The vagaries of the rise of christianity are complex. Some are fairly well understood, others not. It is a mistake to immediately assume, every time there is no ready answer to something, that "God did it".

Actually this second sentence give us some idea that Jesus miracles were much more exciting and powerful than his counterparts. Inadvertant evidence supporting the extent of his miracels.

It does? I'd say that it says more about the apologetic theologogical intentions of his chroniclers than about any historical reality.

1) we have record of Jesus miracles starting around 55AD in Mark

Do we really need to argue about gospel dates again? Mark is ca 70 CE.

2) Josephus makes reference to them

If we take a completely uncritical, charitable and naive view of the testimonium we might believe that.

3) Paul refers to the other apostles teaching the Jews. Some of these apostes later wrote their stories so we have a good idea they included miracles.

First sentence is true enough. The attribution of the gospels (or any other NT writings for that matter) to Jesus' original followers is a matter of faith, based on no conclusive evidence.

4) The author of Acts (luke most likely), wrote that Peter pleaded with the people to believe based on the miracles the people had supposedly already seen.

Circular. Acts suffers from the same problems of the rest of the gospels; it's apologetic nature is well attested (even by F.F. Bruce!).

There are a lot of references to Miracles very early on.

Really? The earliest sources, the Q gospel, gThomas, and authentic Paul, make no mention of them.

And once again, legend can develop, but I have serious doubts that miracles would just POOF appear in the stories within a few decades if they had NOTHING to substanciate them.

But they did have something to substantiate them; the Septaguint. Once these early Christians believed that Jesus was the messiah, then it naturally followed that he would be referenced in scripture, and that these references would be, in some sense, 'true'.

I was just reading your next posted section when I read something that I seriously think you included just to see my reaction. This claim is so far outside the realm of reason that it must be for show.

c) there is no indication that he did claim to be god. There is no indication that the Ebionites (James, Peter, Mary et al) thought that he was. Neither did Paul

It's not "outside the realm of reason" at all. Paul refers to Christ and the father separately. James continues to worship at the Temple. They may have believed that Jesus was a prophet, or a messiah, or the messiah, but it's pretty well established that the Ebionites considered him to be a human, separate from YHWH.

If you honestly think that Paul did not think of Jesus as God, then I am at a loss as to how to debat with you.

Maybe you could demonstrate that he did think so. (Please stick to the authentic letters).

Paul writes plenty about Jesus the son of God, the redeemer, the lord of all, etc.

Those are all great titles, but they're distinct from "the Father".

If you can make a statement like that, then wow, I do not need to refute you. You refuted yourself. This also makes me wonder how many of your unsupported doubts are really just inserted for effect. I have respect for your intellect Lotan. Hence, I am sure that this claim was to get a reaction from me.

Well, ding-dong, you're wrong. Paul describes Jesus as God's errand boy or herald, not as God himself. If you think not, just prove me wrong.

[youngborean]

Well, ding-dong, you're wrong. Paul describes Jesus as God's errand boy or herald, not as God himself. If you think not, just prove me wrong.

1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

There is one word for Lord in the NT that is the same word used to translate the tetragrammaton and to make the distinction of lord (small case). Your claim is that this is a title synonymous with Master, which is a viable translation possibility. But If Paul's intention was not to refer to the the tetragrammaton in the multiple times he uses the phrase Lord Jesus then why wouldn't he pick another word with that meaning like Rabbi, etc? The other viable possibility is that in all of those places Paul is referring to the deity of Jesus. If Lord (caps on) is the proper translation, (and the overwhelming usage of Kurios is in reference to the tetragrammaton 90+%) then Paul is always mentioning the deity of Jesus. My position is that Paul chose this word carefully to cite the greek equivalent of the holy name of God.

[Easyrider]

Paul didn't think Jesus was god, he thought he was 'Christ'.

Philippians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Titus 2:13 - "...while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."

[achilles12604]

Ah my . . .

First a decent link. Then my own analysis from my own readings.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... Deity.html

achilles12604 wrote:
If you can make a statement like that, then wow, I do not need to refute you. You refuted yourself. This also makes me wonder how many of your unsupported doubts are really just inserted for effect. I have respect for your intellect Lotan. Hence, I am sure that this claim was to get a reaction from me.

Lotan wrote:
Well, ding-dong, you're wrong. Paul describes Jesus as God's errand boy or herald, not as God himself. If you think not, just prove me wrong.

Romans is included in Paul's authentic letters

Paul uses the spirit of God and Christ interchangably.

Romans 8: 9-10

"You however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the spirit, if the spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead but your spirit is alive because of righteousness."

Paul makes it clear that there is only one spirit which infuses both Jesus and God. They are of the same entity, not seperate entities. Hence they have seperate structures, but one binding spirit, the spirit of God.

Eph. 4:4-5

"There is one body, and one spirit- Just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

Phillipians 2:5-7 is fairly straight forward about this subject.

Phil 2: 5-7

"You attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servent being made in human appearance."

Here are just a few examples from Paul himself.



In addition to this, there is good reason to explain WHY Paul would have thought this, even back to the Old Testament. God (the father) makes it very clear that he is the only one true God and never to worship anyone else.

Yet, a few places have Jesus being worshiped and in one, Daniel, God himself sets Jesus up to be worshiped. Why would God do this unless Jesus was to be considered God?

Daniel 7:13-14

"In my vision at night I looked and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and soverign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him."

Here was a vision of Christ being given glory and power and set up to be worshiped by men. Again how could this be unless Jesus was also given the "rank" if you will, of God, by God?


There are more passages, however I think my point has been defended and my opinion of this accusation being so far out there it is laughable, is credible.

[Lotan]

Your claim is that this is a title synonymous with Master, which is a viable translation possibility.

Yes it is.

But If Paul's intention was not to refer to the the tetragrammaton in the multiple times he uses the phrase Lord Jesus then why wouldn't he pick another word with that meaning like Rabbi, etc?

Maybe because, as everyone knows, Paul didn't give a fig about Jesus' earthly role as (among other things) a teacher, and was much more interested in his heavenly role as master of the earthly sphere? That's way too easy!

The other viable possibility is that in all of those places Paul is referring to the deity of Jesus.

Except Ephesians 6:5, of course. (...actually, I'm cheating. Paul didn't write Ephesians!)

And then there's stuff like this...

Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philemon 1:3

I'm pretty sure that there are at least a few more like that.

My position is that Paul chose this word carefully to cite the greek equivalent of the holy name of God.

Except that he never just comes right out and says so. My position is that Paul's choice of kurios reflects his perception of the relationship between him and JC, just like Igor and Dr. Frankenstein. Also the Septuagint uses kurios in a secular sense as well, not only as a substitute for the tetragrammation.
........................................................

Philippians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

That's quite a translation! I'd like to know what version it's from. Most of the translations I can find say "in the form of God" or similar (See for yourself.), and as we all know we are all formed in God's image. Was Paul trying to say that Jesus was in the form of himself?

Titus 2:13

Do you have any idea who wrote Titus? I sure don't.

(PS - If it's not too much trouble could you see if the bible that you got the Phillipians quote from has any instances of Paul using the word 'Christians'? I have a little bet with myself. Thanks.)
..........................................................

First a decent link. Then my own analysis from my own readings.

From that article the only clear reference to Paul's writings is Philippians 2:5-7, which I previouly addressed in my reply to Easyrider. Hebrews is definitely not written by Paul, which leaves Colossians which may or may not have been written by him. It reads...

For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, Colossians 2:9 (WEB) or similar.
So God dwells in Jesus? OK. Doesn't God dwell in all of us? Certainly an odd way to say that Jesus is God.

Paul uses the spirit of God and Christ interchangably.

Romans 8: 9-10

"You however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the spirit, if the spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead but your spirit is alive because of righteousness."

Paul makes it clear that there is only one spirit which infuses both Jesus and God.

Yeah, that's clear as mud, and taken out of context too! The next verse is a little easier to understand though...

But if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Romans 8:11

...that sure sounds like 2 people (or deities or whatever) to me!

Eph. 4:4-5

Not Pauline.

Phillipians 2:5-7 is fairly straight forward about this subject.

What translation are you guys using? It sound theologically derived.

In addition to this, there is good reason to explain WHY Paul would have thought this, even back to the Old Testament. God (the father) makes it very clear that he is the only one true God and never to worship anyone else.

Sounds like a good reason NOT to equate JC with YHWH.

Yet, a few places have Jesus being worshiped and in one, Daniel, God himself sets Jesus up to be worshiped. Why would God do this unless Jesus was to be considered God?

Daniel 7:13-14

"In my vision at night...

Excuse me? Is that verse supposed to be about Jesus? Jesus of Nazareth? The carpenter's son? Even if you believe that it is ( ) all it says is that the "son of man" becomes the boss of Earth. It nowhere equates him with YHWH, who isn't mentioned either. If you believe that the "son of man" is JC and the "Ancient of Days" is YHWH, then the verse says that JC "approached" YHWH. I hope that you are more careful than this when you buy new shoes!

There are more passages, however I think my point has been defended and my opinion of this accusation being so far out there it is laughable, is credible.

I've noticed that you often assert that your argument has been made. Why? Shouldn't your arguments stand or fall on their own merits? Does your saying, in effect, "I'm right" actually make it so? Just curious.

[Cathar1950]

Lotan:

But if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Romans 8:11

...that sure sounds like 2 people (or deities or whatever) to me!

Acts 2:36
Therefore let the whole house of Israel recognize beyond all doubt and acknowledge assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ (the Messiah)--this Jesus Whom you crucified.

Sounds like he was made Lord and mater by God which also means he was not always lord and master. How does some one father himself? The son does imply the father preceding his offspring.

achilles12604:

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.

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.

I see many problems with your theory both as an atheist or a theist.

Question 1) the theory seems to lack substance. It looks like a straw man created by a theory you do not specify. You just say some thing like this is my fake theory so why does my unspecified theory that I believe is true and accurate not better then yours?
You are saying; why is the truth not better then this lame theory I made up or got from some dummy? Look at Mormons; they don’t think it was made up. Given a little psychological investigation maybe J Smith Jr. thought it was true too and so did his witnesses. You do not take into account historical or psychological development or even the basic sociology. You have created a theory in a vacuum.
Paul claims to have visions. He could have been crazy. People believe crazy people all the time. Many people followed would be Messiahs and died for their trouble, by the thousands. The total followers that died in the first 300 years may have been less then a thousand. Many less then Christians killed within their own fellow believers as heretics.
20,000 Cathars were killed systematically do to religion and politics in less time.
Christianity with the help of Hellenistic Jewish converts and gentiles grew in cities where other mystery religions Judaism and Gnostics grew. They grew in cities that were I social upheaval and lack community due to Roman empirical methods. After the Jewish wars they were left with the leadership and it is irrelevant what The Pauline Christians believed or there predecessors. You take none of this into account with your straw man.
Question 2) you don’t have an adequate straw man theory that alone an alternative theory. How can anyone even attempt to answer that rather contrived mock theory or theories?
Question 3) Many other theories are possible. Why did you pick this one?
Question 4) Usually others present better theories based on data and plausible scenarios.
You fail to do justice to either, what ever the other one is.

For this theory to be truth, first there must be a why.

If you have a theory sure but I would like to know why you have this theory, I don’t.
It seems to miss everything. Paul had visions and the writers of the gospels were Pauline.
Paul says he teaches a different Jesus and a different gospel that he did not get from the followers of Jesus or any man. We do not know what anyone taught, thought or believed except Paul until after 70 CE. Paul was ousted and rejected. When he made his final account and was called before the Jerusalem assembly that he regarded so lowly he ran into trouble and like a poor martyr such as Josephus he used his Roman citizenship to save his butt. According to Acts where he is the favorite and the account does not follow even Paul’s account he then is under guard (protective custody) in a relatives strong hold until he goes to Rome where he again has special privilege. Maybe Paul was an informant as some suggest. The only thing we know about Jesus’ Jerusalem following is that they disagreed with Paul, disappeared during the war and only Pauline writers were allowed to tell the story. I am sure in your “deep I got the atheist trap” you think you are on to something but it seems to me you have not even accounted for heretics or followers of Mithraism, Isis, Osiris and Attis that alone the Gnostics both Jewish and Christian.

I will return. Is this the theory you have presented and no one has refuted?

[Lotan]

I'll answer my own question about Philippians 2:5-7...

What translation are you guys using? It sound theologically derived.

OK, let me guess. It's gotta be the ............................................ NIV !!!
(Am I right or am I right?)

No wonder you two are confused. Your bibles have apologetics built right into them! Take a look...

New International Version: What today's Christian needs to know about the NIV
a review by G.W. Anderson and D.E. Anderson
"As far as accuracy and fidelity to the texts of the original languages are concerned, the NIV is found to be lacking. It rearranges sentences and verses, leaves out verses and phrases, paraphrases, and introduces material which is not in the original languages. The reader can never be sure if the words he is reading have the inspired words of God behind them or not. He never knows when sound or unsound interpretations are a part of this English text. He can never be sure that, when doing word studies, he has a word to study!"

So, in the interest of readability, the NIV translators have introduced (added) their own interpretations. This is called "dynamic equivalence" which is a fancy word for paraphrasing. So they don't present what Paul actually says, they present what they think that he is saying.

Let's get a second opinion, shall we? Evaluating the New International Version by Steven C. Ibbotson...

"Bible Study – in contrast to the evangelistic purposes, other translations are designed more literally so that they can be used for serious Bible study. They intentionally stick more literally to the text in the original form so that the student of Scripture can study the Bible themselves."

"evangelistic purposes"? Sounds a lot like 'spin'!

"As I see it, there is only one major disadvantage to using the NIV, and this potential problem is only expressed in some places, not all. The NIV is not a particularly great English translation for serious Bible study. Don’t get me wrong. I still believe the NIV is a good and accurate translation of the meaning of the original text of Scripture. It is important to point out however, that for purposes of readability, the NIV does compromise in a few places some important exegetical features. The good student of the Word will do sufficient study and research into the passage they are teaching or preaching on to find the original sentence structure or grammatical features that are important for exegesis. Thus, this is not a serious problem. However, if one is doing mechanical layouts, for example, from the NIV, these can be a poor representation of the original text. Most of these difficulties come in the Pauline epistles where the NIV takes Paul’s inspired run-on sentences and puts them into two or three sentences for obvious reasons of clarity."

So, the NIV might be good for reading Bible stories to the kids, but it is a poor tool for "serious Bible study".

Next...

[youngborean]

youngborean wrote:
Your claim is that this is a title synonymous with Master, which is a viable translation possibility.

Yes it is.

Maybe because, as everyone knows, Paul didn't give a fig about Jesus' earthly role as (among other things) a teacher, and was much more interested in his heavenly role as master of the earthly sphere? That's way too easy!




And then there's stuff like this...

Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philemon 1:3

I'm pretty sure that there are at least a few more like that.

Your being pretty sure hardly seems like contrary evidence.
In this example the possessive could somehow justify the uses of the small l "lord" translation, but it remains ambiguous. Which you seem to admit:

Except that he never just comes right out and says so. My position is that Paul's choice of kurios reflects his perception of the relationship between him and JC, just like Igor and Dr. Frankenstein.

So clearly this is just your position and has nothing to do on whether or not the evidence shows whether Paul refers to the tetragrammaton. If the ambiguity remains then we need to address the simple point that Kurios is overwhelmingly used (90+%) in reference to the tetragrammaton or a formal name for god. In the septuigant it has potential other connotations, but they are exeptions to the general rule. So if we really are going to claim that these multiple uses of Lord Jesus from Paul (i count 50+,15 of which have a possessive) are all ambiguous, then should not the overwhelming colloquial usage of Kurios in the septuigant be taken into account? Unless you can show that this was definitely a secular word, you could never make the statement, "Paul describes Jesus as God's errand boy or herald, not as God himself" with any definite assurance. So your logic is then, even though Kurious is used 90% of the time in reference to the name of god in both the OT and references to OT passages in the NT, Paul uses kurios in a secular connotation 100% of the time based on my gut feeling. Not a very convincing argument.