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]

If you guys are using it as an arguement, how is our attacking it a strawman?

Please try to pay attention. I'm not using it as an argument, so I'm not one of "you guys". If some atheists have used this argument that is their business and it does nothing to refute the fact that many apologists (who should know better) drag it out frequently as well.

Wait . . . so it was within the bounds of Judahism to believe that

1) God had a son
2) This son died for the sins of man
3) This son rose from the dead
4) Faith in this son was the only acceptable method to God. All the laws of moses were thrown out the window and useless because this man forgave sins.
5) Worship of his son was acceptable

Look at the variety of Christian belief that we see today. First century Judahism was even more diverse. There was the official temple orthodoxy (Sadducees), but there were also numerous sects, (Pharisees, Essenes, etc.). Most of the things on your list hadn't been invented yet. That is the whole point.

Ok. Well if you want to think this then cool. It make absolutly ZERO sense to me and would probably throw most of the Jews in that century into a riot (oh wait, thats what happened when the Christians began to preach in other cities and countries, hmmm?)

It's probable that you don't understand because you think that 'Christianity' arrived fully formed with Jesus rather than being gradually developed after his death.

What term would better describe a person who believed in one thing and then was convinced to believe another thing which was blasphemy to the first thing?

I don't know, maybe 'reformer' or 'fundamentalist'? Was Martin Luther a heretic or convert?
Messianic expectation was high in first century Palestine. The difference of opinion was whether or not Jesus was part of the fulfillment of that expectation. You may believe today that he fulfilled the law and died for our sins, but that didn't stop James from continuing to worship at the Temple (with requisite attendance to the Torah).

Ok I can show that within just a very few short years (ten to fifteen) the followers of Jesus thought him to be
1) From and of God
2) worthy of worship
3) their savior
4) died for their sins so that belief in him saved them
5) The laws of moses were now negated

That would be great. Could you also show that these beliefs were shared by the Jerusalem gang? As I recall they had a serious disagreement with Paul's interpretation.

Now you please show us how you know that the early followers believed something totally different than the Christians of 15 years later.

There are so many things, like the Ebionites, for example...

"The Ebionites (from Hebrew; ˈEbyonim, "the poor ones") were a sect of Judean followers of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth who existed in the Iudaea Province of the Roman Empire during the early centuries of the Common Era.

The Ebionites were in theological conflict with other strands of early Christianity. While the Ebionites undoubtedly drew their doctrines from ideas circulating in the 1st century AD, Robert H. Eisenman, professor of Middle East religions and archaeology and director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins, argues that they existed as a distinct group from Pauline Christians and Gnostic Christians before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Some modern scholars, including Hyam Maccoby, Robert Graves, Hugh J. Schonfield, Keith Akers, Benjamin Urrutia and Joshua Podro contend that the Ebionites were more faithful than Paul of Tarsus to the original and authentic teachings of Jesus and/or James the Just."

"All these sources within mainstream Christianity agree that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin."

"The Ebionites emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph, who was 'adopted' as a son of God when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism, and therefore could have become the messianic king-priest of Israel (by virtue of also being both a descendant of king David through his father and a descendant of high priest Aaron through his mother) but was chosen to be the last and greatest of the prophets.

The Ebionites may have revered the Desposyni (a sacred name reserved only for Jesus' blood relatives), especially James the Just (Yakov or Jacob), as the legitimate apostolic successors of Jesus, rather than Peter. This claim is supported by passages in the Pauline epistles (Galatians 2), and portions of the Book of Acts (e.g. Acts 15) that supposedly present James as outranking Peter."

(Before you cry about my use of Wikipedia, please show where any of this information is inaccurate. It's a handy reference, and there is nothing in this article that substantially differs from anything that I've read elsewhere.)

If you need to hide behind a name change and point to that for your defense, while ingoring the beliefs which made them who they were then fine. Do so.

Oh, boo hoo. My point is simply that Christianity in the first century could mean a lot of things, and that there was as yet no heresy, because an orthodoxy hadn't yet been developed. If you think that Jesus' original followers represented the orthodox view then Paul was a heretic.

However, Paul's letters were blasphemous to the Jews and they existed many many years before the destruction of the temple. You still have a lot of explaining away, and doubt spreading to do before you can make this leap.

Yeah, Paul got beat up a lot, but I'm talking about those earliest 'converts' in Jerusalem. The ones that may have actually met Jesus, not the theologically inspired imaginations of those who came after.

[Lotan]

You are completely missing the point. Paul says "saith the lord" a construction that appears throughout the OT and always uses the tetragrammaton. This is then Paul translating the hebrew phrase as he knows it in Greek which just happens to use Kurios instead of Theos. Is Paul using a secular connotation here when he says Lord? No.

Are you assuming that Paul was translating scripture from Hebrew himself? Why wouldn't he use the handy-dandy Septuagint like all the other Greek speaking diaspora Jews? (actually, I think this might be evidence that he did just that).

Well clearly he spoke hebrew, which makes me assume he wrote and read Hebrew as well. The NT only infers that Paul knew to speak Greek, and clearly shows he knew hebrew. So we can't really say that he wrote (and read) in greek. We have known his letters in Greek but that isn't to say that they weren't translated.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense....why wouldn't Paul write to all his gentile friends in Hebrew, instead of the Greek that even the diaspora Jews used commonly? You're really stretching.

Evidence of what? These 2 constructions can easily mean Elohim pater and YHWH Jesus Christ.

So YHWH is the Son?

There is nothing you have shown from Paul's Greek that clearly associates theos with the tetragrammaton. Elohim and YHWH are 2 different words that mean the same thing.

So "Elohim and YHWH are 2 different words that mean the same thing" but theos and YHWH can't be?
And as far as clearly associating theos with YHWH, the Septuagint does it, so why couldn't Paul? Weren't you arguing originally that Paul's usage should resemble that of the Septuagint? Now you want me to believe that he translated from Hebrew scripture! Which is it?

Clearly you haven't provided any textual evidence to show that people translated YHWH to Theos.

Genesis 2:2 is nothing?
You're welcome to look it up for yourself if you'd like.

It seems more likely that Paul, if he knew (and read) greek as you said, would be falling the general rule that seems to exist throughout NT Greek at that time. That when there is a distinction between Elohim and YHWH needs to be made, you use theos for elohim and kurios for YHWH.

I can see why a proponent of the documentary hypothesis would make that distinction, but why would Paul? The translators of the Septuagint didn't.

Just like Jesus uses when he quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 in Matthew 4:7.

Did Jesus quote Deuteronomy in Greek then?

In the NT greek uses Kurios for for the tetragrammaton and theos for elohim. Very simple.

I assume that you must be referring to NT quotes from the OT (Sept.).I'll admit that I haven't examined every such usage in the NT, do you have a source for this assertion? I'd like to see for myself.

In the NT greek uses Kurios for for the tetragrammaton and theos for elohim. Very simple. Theos Pater is a completely new construction that has nothing to do with the tetragrammaton as a direct translation. Unless you can show me Paul quoting an OT passage where he puts in Theos Pater for the Tetragrammaton. As a construction it is not etymologically related to anything directly in the old testament, except for theos being used for elohim in NT translations of the word.

Yet he never refers to Jesus as the father. It is always distinct, usually in the form of the father(subject) doing something for or to the son (object), as in "his Son from heaven, whom he raised" (1Thessalonians 1:10) or even more clearly "God exalted him" (Phillipians 2:9). Now I understand that it is trinitarian belief that the Father and Son are one, but why would Paul express it this way? Clearly he is talking about two distinct entities.

Paul just reiterates the story that Jesus began.

Which he received in a trance? I can't take that assertion seriously. Sorry.

Distinct and equally God to be worshipped.

Why would an equal need to be "exalted" or "raised up" by someone else?

There is nothing to denote secular Lordness when Paul talks about Jesus.

Maybe you're hung up on the whole 'secular connotation' thing. Paul refers to himself as Jesus' "servant". This makes Jesus Paul's master. The relationship is certainly theological, but that doesn't mean that Paul's Jesus rises to the level of God. He's more like an emissary of God.

I know that is your intention. But your intention does not automatically mean that the grammatical evidence supports you. You can't just say this phrase is the greek equivalent of that hebrew word with no definite connection to the hebrew just because it is what you often do.

Besides the fact that the Septuagint uses theos for both 'elohim' and 'YHWH' (which is a definite connection), Paul hardly invented the idea of viewing God (elohim or YHWH, take your pick) as a father figure...

Thou hast seen [it]; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite [it] with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless. Psalms 10:14

When my father and my mother forsake me, then Yahweh will take me up. Psalm 27:10

Assyria can't save us. We won't ride on horses; neither will we say any more to the work of our hands,'Our gods!' for in you the fatherless finds mercy. Hosea 14:3

Even Jesus called out to 'Abba'.

I can see no good reason for you drawing a distinction between God, YHWH, Elohim, or Father, except than to further your argument. You haven't shown that such a distinction was made by Paul, or anyone else for that matter. Paul does make a distinction between Father and Son though.

It is ambiguous whether or not Kurios is ever secular in Paul's writing. There been no evidence which you cited where Paul definitely uses Kurios with a secular connotation. In every case it is ambiguous.

I think "secular" is the wrong word. It's the relationship that is being described.

However, I already cited one unambiguous passage where it is definitely in reference to the Tetragrammaton.

A quote from the LXX? Do you have anything that is original to Paul?

Therefore we are left to believe in the abscence of any etymological evidence that Paul was just doing what his other greek speaking contemporaries were doing, using Theos for elohim and Kurios for YHWH.

What absence of etymological evidence? The word theos is used in the LXX for both 'elohim' and YHWH. Why would you ignore that?


(PS - This is the best debate I've had here in quite a while. Thanks)

[Cathar1950]

achilles12604 wrote:

Wait . . . so it was within the bounds of Judahism to believe that 1) God had a son 2) This son died for the sins of man 3) This son rose from the dead 4) Faith in this son was the only acceptable method to God. All the laws of moses were thrown out the window and useless because this man forgave sins. 5) Worship of his son was acceptable

Many were called Gods son with out claiming divinity. David and other Kings, the prophets and even Israel were called sons of God. What seems to have happened is the pagan ideas of son were appropriated into the theology and traditions reflected in the gospels. He died a martyrs death like many other Jews at the time. There were people that had visions of Jesus now at Gods right hand and soon to return to Judge and set up Gods kingdom where God would be king. God forgives and we are to do likewise.
Your 5 points seem to be a Pauline invention and interpretation. We have no idea what Jesus really taught or what the Jerusalem followers believed. We do know from Pauls letters that it was different then the Jerusalem followers. He claims to have got his gospel directly from the "Christ" and not from others. He says he teaches a different gospel and a different Jesus. The evidence points to the gospels being written all after 70 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and Mathew and Luke are a reworking of Mark.
James the head of the church worshiped in the temple including the Day of Atonement.
You could not tell the difference between and zealous Jew and the Christians until after the war. Paul gives a different gospel to the gentiles and his churches were started in cities where other cults flourished and his gospel may have made sense to Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora as well as god-fearers. It was largely spread through family and friends. James Jesus brother was well respected by the Jews in Jerusalem for almost 40 years after Jesus death and had a following of lower priests.

[Easyrider]

Many were called Gods son with out claiming divinity. David and other Kings, the prophets and even Israel were called sons of God.

Jesus claimed divinity. Even Jews understood his claims to divinity and tried to stone him for this supposed blasphemy. That's absent with David, etc.

We have no idea what Jesus really taught or what the Jerusalem followers believed.

Yes, we do. The NT is filled with Jesus' teachings and beliefs.

We do know from Pauls letters that it was different then the Jerusalem followers. ... He says he teaches a different gospel and a different Jesus.

That's a twisted argument. Paul simple argued against those who taught a different (legalistic) version than what he and Jesus taught.

The evidence points to the gospels being written all after 70 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and Mathew and Luke are a reworking of Mark.

Negative. Review my prior posts as to why this is wrong.

James the head of the church worshiped in the temple including the Day of Atonement.

James calls Jesus "The Lord Jesus Christ" - (James 1:1).

You could not tell the difference between and zealous Jew and the Christians until after the war.

That's wrong. Otherwise Jesus, the disciples, and other Christians would not have been persecuted by Saul (later Paul) and the Jews before the war, as we see in Acts.

[youngborean]

Why wouldn't he use the handy-dandy Septuagint like all the other Greek speaking diaspora Jews? (actually, I think this might be evidence that he did just that).

Well for starters he was a Jew trained in Israel by his own claims. Second, the Rabbinic tradition didn't support the usage of the septuigant.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense....why wouldn't Paul write to all his gentile friends in Hebrew, instead of the Greek that even the diaspora Jews used commonly? You're really stretching.

Not at all. I am using logic from the common tradition about Paul at the time.

Act 21:39 Paul said, I am a man [which am] a Jew of Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto [them] in the Hebrew tongue, saying

And it goes on in the next chapter. It seems more logical that his language was Hebrew or Aramaic (the common language of his homeland) and that Greek may have been his secondary language.

Genesis 2:2 is nothing?
You're welcome to look it up for yourself if you'd like.

I meant evidence form Paul. There may be some anomolies in the LXX but the overwhelming general rule applies. Certainly nothing that would make us believe that Paul changed the anomoly to the new general rule in his unique form of NT greek.

I assume that you must be referring to NT quotes from the OT (Sept.).I'll admit that I haven't examined every such usage in the NT, do you have a source for this assertion? I'd like to see for myself.

NT quotes of the OT are really the only way we can have a sense of how NT greek writers viewed hebrew words via the septuigant or direct from the Hebrew as in the case of Paul (from my understanding of him). I do have a reference and you will be happy to know that there is one example of theos being used as for the tetragrammaton, which is a reflection of the anomolies of the LXX. But the general rule provides the basis especially when looking at Matthew 4:7 which contains the translation of both words in question. Either way we will continue with an ambiguity and no absolutes that you were original trying to establish. Here's a link:

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

Did Jesus quote Deuteronomy in Greek then?

Does it matter? If Jesus was using the Greek then he is reiterating the tradition of the translators of the septuigant made that when a distinction was needed between Elohim and YHWH, that theos was used to translate elohim and kurios was used to translate YHWH. This is clear as day in the Matthew passage I cited. The Greek NT reiterates this tradition regardless of the source text.

Besides the fact that the Septuagint uses theos for both 'elohim' and 'YHWH' (which is a definite connection), Paul hardly invented the idea of viewing God (elohim or YHWH, take your pick) as a father figure...

So you want to use the septuigant as a source text when it serves you? Show me a passage that shows clearly that Paul is using the septuigant and I will agree.

You haven't shown that such a distinction was made by Paul, or anyone else for that matter.

I clearly did. There was a distinction in the etymology of the 2 greek words in the Matthew 4:7 passage.

Do you have anything that is original to Paul?

I already gave you a quote directly from Paul in Romans. "thus saith the Lord" A hebrew phrase always using the tetragrammaton which uses Kurios rather than theos. You are the one that hasn't shown anything original to Paul. Here's another:

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Is this master or YHWH? Admittedly this is not as strong as "thus saith the lord becuase the original Hebrew doesn't contain any word in reference to the Lord within that verse.

What absence of etymological evidence? The word theos is used in the LXX for both 'elohim' and YHWH. Why would you ignore that?

The abscence of Etymological evidence from Paul. There is nowhere where Paul uses Theos Pater as a translation of YHWH. The etymology of the LXX/Hebrew OT to the NT overwhelming uses Elohim/theos YHWH/Kurios.

[Goat]

Many were called Gods son with out claiming divinity. David and other Kings, the prophets and even Israel were called sons of God.

Jesus claimed divinity. Even Jews understood his claims to divinity and tried to stone him for this supposed blasphemy. That's absent with David, etc.

We have no idea what Jesus really taught or what the Jerusalem followers believed.

Yes, we do. The NT is filled with Jesus' teachings and beliefs.

We do know from Pauls letters that it was different then the Jerusalem followers. ... He says he teaches a different gospel and a different Jesus.

That's a twisted argument. Paul simple argued against those who taught a different (legalistic) version than what he and Jesus taught.

The evidence points to the gospels being written all after 70 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and Mathew and Luke are a reworking of Mark.

Negative. Review my prior posts as to why this is wrong.

James the head of the church worshiped in the temple including the Day of Atonement.

James calls Jesus "The Lord Jesus Christ" - (James 1:1).

You could not tell the difference between and zealous Jew and the Christians until after the war.

That's wrong. Otherwise Jesus, the disciples, and other Christians would not have been persecuted by Saul (later Paul) and the Jews before the war, as we see in Acts.

From what i have seen, there is no unambigous statement from Jesus where he claimed 'divinity'. The term 'son of god' was an ephanism during that time frame that meant 'pious man'. So far, you have been claiming the Jesus claimed to be divine, but all your examples don't hold water.

There were many early Chrisitian sects that thought so to. The fact there is an Arian Hersey proves that.

[achilles12604]

If you guys are using it as an arguement, how is our attacking it a strawman?

Please try to pay attention. I'm not using it as an argument, so I'm not one of "you guys". If some atheists have used this argument that is their business and it does nothing to refute the fact that many apologists (who should know better) drag it out frequently as well.

First, lets settle this little pointless dispute.

Are you still seriously claiming that my attack on this conspiracy theory is a strawman arguement?

If so, then please explain how this is strawman when it is used by atheists. You have made it clear that YOU personally do not think that this arguement holds water. You and I agree on this. However, just because you didn't use it, does not mean that other atheists didn't use it.

If any atheist used it (and so far I have found 4 different people from this site using it several times a piece) , then it is now a real arguement which I have every right to refute correct?


It is not my creating a straw man to beat up. I am simply pointing out that this particular version of how Christianity began, doesn't wash.

[Cathar1950]

I guess we will have to just disagree. I do not find your arguments compelling. The many works I have read the scholars seem to press for an early date just on the internal evidence. An early date seems to be theological in a political sense. Even given an early date for any writings does not cover the whole works nor the obvious variations and editing. The gospels were read in communities that were established in Gentile communities by gentiles. Nothing exists from Jerusalem therefore it is silent.
But a tradition says they were normative Jews and respected by their fellow Jews.
There were zealous for the law. Herodians High Priests and Romans seem to be their oppressors not fellow Jews. They had Zealot attachments and they came from Galilee.
The number of traditions and variety of known works shows us the variety of opinion.
Like the people of the Dead Sea and the Zealots they disappeared with the temple.
What now is the history of Christianity came from the Pauline gentiles and was battled out as heresy. The New Testament is a select and limited collection of the writings except for 6 or 7 letters of Paul most was written after the Jewish war. By the most conservative the letters of James, Peter, Jude, John and others were later works my disciples of disciples; at least that was the traditions. I do not think this discredits them because I think the history of the church is a lesson in diversity and intolerance.

Paul hounded the church because he was probably a Herodian, working for the High Priest, which controlled for Rome. Jesus was executed for sedition not blasphemy and the Christians lived unharmed by Jews until the war. The Romans and Herodians as well as the High Priest gave them trouble as you would any promoting a kingdom. Paul was trouble.

It seems to me if Jesus used "I am" as meaning YHWH he may have been talking about God and not himself.
Again we only have the words of others in Greek written to gentiles. I guess it really doesnt matter.

achilles12604:

Jesus claimed divinity. Even Jews understood his claims to divinity and tried to stone him for this supposed blasphemy. That's absent with David, etc.

It is reported he said that. Who was there in the conflicting stories concerning his arrest and trial to tell someone else who told some one else to someone could write about tit in a gospel. Blasphemy sounds like a later charge being addressed. Given the conflicting stories it is hard to say what Jesus said. There were many claiming to be the messiah and many revolts. With the popularity among the Jews of the followers of Jesus following his death it is hard to believe he claimed to be God. I can see Caesar and his followers doing that but now good Jews. I think we are looking at the gentile version of Paul.
achilles12604:

Yes, we do. The NT is filled with Jesus' teachings and beliefs.

We have what his gentile followers left us. Just like Plato left Socrates words yet we dont know what he said and many think Plato put many of his ideas in Socrates mouth. It looks like the writers of the New Testament did the same thing. But that is what they did back then.

Cathar1950 wrote:

We do know from Pauls letters that it was different then the Jerusalem followers. ... He says he teaches a different gospel and a different Jesus.

achilles12604

That's a twisted argument. Paul simple argued against those who taught a different (legalistic) version than what he and Jesus taught.

I think it is obvious. Those people from James those with letter and those that knew Jesus in the flesh. Acts is not that reliable but from Pauls letters and tradition he claimed to be Roman and a citizen of Tarsus. He was a Hellenistic Jew and maybe even a Herodian.
It was always a legalist version. Paul was the innovation.

Cathar1950 wrote:

The evidence points to the gospels being written all after 70 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and Mathew and Luke are a reworking of Mark.

achilles12604

Negative. Review my prior posts as to why this is wrong.

Negative you were wrong in your prior posts also. I disagree and so do many scholars including conservatives. Even a early writing does not count for the whole lot and there is progression and coping. There is also redaction. I agree it is true of all ancient writings. What is remarkable is you claim that this collection is beyond that sort of thing. The modern conservatives seem to be the ones involved in a conspiracy not the honest ignorant second century member of the assemblies.

achilles12604

James calls Jesus "The Lord Jesus Christ" - (James 1:1).

Again the letter of James is questionable and considered to be a late work of followers after his death. But I am sure you can find some that say he wrote every word himself as I can find compelling arguments against such a view.

Cathar1950 wrote:
Yo

u could not tell the difference between and zealous Jew and the Christians until after the war.

achilles12604

That's wrong. Otherwise Jesus, the disciples, and other Christians would not have been persecuted by Saul (later Paul) and the Jews before the war, as we see in Acts.

If Paul were working for the high priest then zealots would be the ones you haul in for the Romans and Herodians. Paul does seem to say he is related to the little Herod but should we believe him? But it hardly matters he claimed to be a Roman and that seems to be renouncing the kingdom of God to Jews and Christians alike. The law was already dead and God appointed the rulers of this world so obey. Like I said I dont trust Acts.

[Lotan]

First, lets settle this little pointless dispute.

Agreed. I would like to clear things up as well.

Are you still seriously claiming that my attack on this conspiracy theory is a strawman arguement?

No. And yes.

I cannot agree more that you are absolutely within your rights to counter any argument made by anyone on this MB. That's not my beef.

Where I find a problem is when you use this 'conspiracy theory' argument as an excuse to make unfounded generalizations and ad hominems. For example...

I was giving some thought to the athiest viewpoint here.

Maybe that was just a poor choice of words, but that phrase "the atheist viewpoint" really gets my attention. Are you saying that the 'conspiracy theory is the atheist viewpoint on this MB? Did you take a poll? It's one thing to refute the views of individuals, but quite another to paint all atheists with the same brush. Outside of this MB, especially among serious researchers, the Christ-mythers are a fringe minority, not taken all that seriously. They may occasionally have good points to make but the consensus for a historical Jesus is overwhelming.

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.

Both Cathar and myself, at least, have offered a quite similar picture of the beginnings of Christianity, based on the works of both secular and Christian historians, and the argument that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus' life isn't the sole peoperty of atheists. IOW, it is an opinion based on evidence, not bias.

atheists start with the assumption that God does not exist.

Do they really? I don't. It is my conclusion that God (at least as described in the Bible) doesn't exist, not my assumption.

Lotan's point is much like all atheists. Like Hume before him, he has removed the possibility of the supernatural before asking the question.

Completely wrong. The supernatural is always a possibility. Also, how do you know what "all atheists" think? Have you asked them?

Lotan looks for the best solution, GOD isn't even in his box of possibilities since God was removed before the quesiton was ever asked.

Wrong again. If you want to know the truth, I am technically an agnostic (Don't tell harvey1! ). I think that any claim to absolute knowledge is to some extent faith based. The only way that I could honestly claim that God doesn't exist is if I had infinite knowledge.

Hence, God is the easyiest and most logical answer for Easyrider, and he isn't even given a chance with Lotan.

More of the same. I give God a chance every moment of every day.

atheists use this theory quite a bit.

Do they? This is based on what, your encounters with a few internet posters? Have you read any (more or less) secular histories of early Christianity? If so, then I wonder why you would make this comment. If not, then this one would be relevant to the current topic. I'm sure Cathar could recommend something too.

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 should read something by the evil Bishop Spong sometime. He would say that God is expressed by love, life, and being. Jesus exemplified those characteristics so well that his followers could see God in him, and they expressed that inexpressible experience of God that Jesus showed them the only way they could, through metaphor. No need for hocus-pocus.

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

Why would you say that? This is more mischaracterization of atheists (as well as anyone else who doesn't buy the gospel story).

Miracles are implausible. Therefore we can be sure God does not exist. Since God does not exist, miracles are implausible.

Again, this is a strawman. It's definitely not my view.

If you guys are using it as an arguement, how is our attacking it a strawman?

As I said before, I'm not one of "you guys".

These sort of 'attacks' detract from your arguments and make it difficult, for me at least, to take you seriously. I have actually enjoyed this thread more than most, but the repeated, implicit charges of bias add nothing to the discussion. Convince me that the gospel story is true and I'll answer the altar call this Sunday (bet you didn't even know that I go to church. ). But until then, please argue with me based on what I say, and not based on some strawman distortion of my motives. You don't know me that well.

[Easyrider]

Both Cathar and myself, at least, have offered a quite similar picture of the beginnings of Christianity, based on the works of both secular and Christian historians, and the argument that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus' life isn't the sole peoperty of atheists. IOW, it is an opinion based on evidence, not bias.

Suspect evidence at best. The Gospels and other Scriptural accounts tell a much different picture that there are firsthand eyewitness accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. But you and Cathar will believe what you want to nevertheless.