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.

[Goat]

I just placing this post so it is easier for Goat, Cog and . . . . I'm so sorry. I can not remember the other individual who was convinced that Christianity was a well orchestrated scam. Anyway, I am bringing this back to the top of the apologetics page to give them one chance to re-read my OP and then comment on it.

Christianity in general isn't.

However, Some of the evangalistics use methods that are less than honest to try to convert people (the J4J is funded by the southern baptists, and "Moishe Rosen" was a S.B. minister before started the J4J movement), Also, many of the televangalists certainly are scam artists, who make their money off the naivity of the believers. A number of them got very wealthy by their preaching, and some of them I am quite sure are less than sincere. This includes (But is not limited to), Jimmy Baker, Ted Haggerty, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, the late Gene Scott, Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn.

[achilles12604]

I just placing this post so it is easier for Goat, Cog and . . . . I'm so sorry. I can not remember the other individual who was convinced that Christianity was a well orchestrated scam. Anyway, I am bringing this back to the top of the apologetics page to give them one chance to re-read my OP and then comment on it.

Christianity in general isn't.

However, Some of the evangalistics use methods that are less than honest to try to convert people (the J4J is funded by the southern baptists, and "Moishe Rosen" was a S.B. minister before started the J4J movement), Also, many of the televangalists certainly are scam artists, who make their money off the naivity of the believers. A number of them got very wealthy by their preaching, and some of them I am quite sure are less than sincere. This includes (But is not limited to), Jimmy Baker, Ted Haggerty, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, the late Gene Scott, Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn.

This I agree with entirely. 100% Many people are using religion as a scam. However, this is not what brought my attention back to this thread. Several individuals here have claimed that Christianity was obviously a well organized hoax or scam. When I asked individuals to present how Christianity arose including all the facts (The Rise of Christianity Challenge) I got two people who actually attempted to complete the challenge and account for the details I presented. Everyone else immediately began to muddy the waters and avoid even trying to do what was asked.

Anyhow, because I heard several indiviudals make the assertion that christianity and its founders were in a well organized scam, I reminded them we have a thread going about this very subject.

[Confused]

I can't consider it a scam or a well orchestrated hoax. If it is either, it was done very poorly considering all the inconsistencies. No, I think that most who are Christians are genuine in their beliefs. Though there exist a few that I think need a refresher course in what Christian is.

[Greatest I Am]

If Christianity is a hoax then all other religions are as well.

Christianity was built on the foundation of writings and oral tradition that reach to a distant past, way before Jesus came along and Christianity was born. The search for God is a old as man and the initial logic of religion was adopted by many different sects. Eventually these sects amalgamated to the main religions that we see today. The search for God is the important thing and competition in most field is welcome as a way to improve all subgroups. I guess that since religion is so fundamental to the human psyche that this is what causes different religions to be so adamant about their being the right way.

Perhaps knowing that religion was so wide spread, naturally, proves the existence of God. He was sought after on all continents when people did not know of all continents.

Personally I do not cares what name or title we assume as long as the search is for God. Perhaps this is why the ancients were loath to give God a name. They may have realized that allowing ambiguity would help bring peace to all.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

If Christianity is a hoax then all other religions are as well.

I don't quite follow the logic. If Scientology is a hoax then all other religions are as well. If Mormonism is a hoax then all other religions are as well.

Christianity was built on the foundation of writings and oral tradition that reach to a distant past, way before Jesus came along and Christianity was born.

{Buddhism | Scientology | Mormonism | Zoroastrianism | Baha'i | Islam } (select one) was built on the foundation of writings and oral tradition that reach to a distant past

The search for God is a old as man and the initial logic of religion was adopted by many different sects. Eventually these sects amalgamated to the main religions that we see today. The search for God is the important thing and competition in most field is welcome as a way to improve all subgroups. I guess that since religion is so fundamental to the human psyche that this is what causes different religions to be so adamant about their being the right way.

Perhaps knowing that religion was so wide spread, naturally, proves the existence of God. He was sought after on all continents when people did not know of all continents.

This logical fallacy is known as Argumentum ad Populum.

Personally I do not cares what name or title we assume as long as the search is for God. Perhaps this is why the ancients were loath to give God a name. They may have realized that allowing ambiguity would help bring peace to all.

Why not search for truth and leave out the a priori assumption of God?

[Greatest I Am]

Hi McCulloch

I dont know if I would not call Scientology a traditional religion based on any of the older writings. Mormonism is built on the foundations of older religions.

Argumentum ad Populum. Perhaps you would like to explain your thoughts on why man seams to have both a spiritual nature as well as a political nature if it is not natural.
It is much easier to criticize than to provide an answer.

I do not assume the presence of God. I know of His existence..

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

I dont know if I would not call Scientology a traditional religion based on any of the older writings. Mormonism is built on the foundations of older religions.

No one makes up a religion out of thin air. Not even L. Ron Hubbard. Perhaps I should have used "Christian Science" or "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the example.

Argumentum ad Populum. Perhaps you would like to explain your thoughts on why man seams to have both a spiritual nature as well as a political nature if it is not natural.

Now you have committed the Appeal to Nature Fallacy. The human tendency to attribute purpose and intelligence to inanimate objects is natural but not rationally true.

It is much easier to criticize than to provide an answer.

So I'll just carry on criticizing.

Actually, it is quite easy to provide answers. It is the correct answers that are so hard to do.

I do not assume the presence of God. I know of His existence.

How?

[Greatest I Am]

I dont know if I would not call Scientology a traditional religion based on any of the older writings. Mormonism is built on the foundations of older religions.

No one makes up a religion out of thin air. Not even L. Ron Hubbard. Perhaps I should have used "Christian Science" or "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the example.

The first religion did come out of thin air. Air filled with Holy Ghost. By your logic no religion would have ever started.

Argumentum ad Populum. Perhaps you would like to explain your thoughts on why man seams to have both a spiritual nature as well as a political nature if it is not natural.

Now you have committed the Appeal to Nature Fallacy. The human tendency to attribute purpose and intelligence to inanimate objects is natural but not rationally true.

Huh

It is much easier to criticize than to provide an answer.

So I'll just carry on criticizing.

Actually, it is quite easy to provide answers. It is the correct answers that are so hard to do.

I do not assume the presence of God. I know of His existence.

How?

Because I see the Perfection of God's works.

Regards
DL

[Cathar1950]

I am going to be forced to go over your OP Achilles given I was half way thru it and already disagree with you and your premises.

There is nothing like a good conspiracy theory and I dont think you have one.

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.

I dont think there has to be a why or even one why. The development of the Christian religion has many factors and influences. As Mack points out it didnt develop in a vacuum and Confused makes a good point that consistency is not the strong suit of NT writings even if it is only the selected writings of a particular trend we call the proto-orthodox view. It is largely a development of oppositions to others such as the Ebonite on one end and Gnostics on the other. Even these labels are limited as there were as in early orthodox thinking and expression many varieties.

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.

The first follows of Jesus did not see themselves as constructing a new religion and were not considered "totally evil" and the excommunication fro the Jewish communities did not happen until much later. Paul would be working for the High Priest and therefore the Romans. If we believe anything in Acts it seems that the Christians were unmolested by most of their Jewish fellows. It also seems they had more in common with Zealots and Pharisees and the lower priesthood. There may have been less then a thousand killed by the Romans in the 300 to 400 years before Constantine and this was usually only done to the leaders some of which almost asked to be killed. They also had their own support structure by the time the reluctant separation between Christians and Jews took place.
Most of the animosity found in the gospels seem to be projected into the story as it related to later developments as the Christians came to see Jesus as God in a way not understood by Palestinian Jews. I think your above paragraph is highly questionable and sounds like apologetic rhetoric and lacks historical substance. You might want to read some of Tony Starks writings for better details. Many were let go and they were asked to repent. But the number killed would be minuscule compared to the Jews being killed throughout the Roman world. Stark could also give you reasons why the Christians flourished when and where they did so.

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?

The Galileans seem to have gone to Jerusalem to wait for Jesus to return and set up His kingdom. They pooled their resources. Paul went so far as to say it is better to not get married because the kingdom was so close. It seems that you are vastly overstating your case and the history does not support your claims. Your supposed conspiracy theory is a weak straw man at best.

[Easyrider]

The development of the Christian religion has many factors and influences. As Mack points out it didnt develop in a vacuum and Confused makes a good point that consistency is not the strong suit of NT writings even if it is only the selected writings of a particular trend we call the proto-orthodox view. It is largely a development of oppositions to others such as the Ebonite on one end and Gnostics on the other. Even these labels are limited as there were as in early orthodox thinking and expression many varieties.

I think Confused's basis for so-called inconsistency on the main doctrines of the NT are suspect, especially considering the redundancy of them in various NT works, and the OT basis for many of them, which are clearly evident.

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?

Evil according to whom? Not the NT writers and early church, which also had many former Judaism converts.

The first follows of Jesus did not see themselves as constructing a new religion and were not considered "totally evil" and the excommunication fro the Jewish communities did not happen until much later.

Partially agree. The NT writers saw Christ / Christianity as the fulfillment of OT Judaism. This is evidenced by the numerous references to OT scriptures.

Most of the animosity found in the gospels seem to be projected into the story as it related to later developments as the Christians came to see Jesus as God in a way not understood by Palestinian Jews.

Please document your "projected" claim. I see the animosity towards Christ and his followers as not being projected INTO the Gospels, but an integral part thereof - as historical observations.