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]

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.

Thats OK, because just about everyone else does

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

So you think that is logical that Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, who was "all things to all men", a guy who grew up in a Hellenic city and could quote Greek poetry, should have written his epistles to his gentile friends in other Hellenic cities in Hebrew, a language that they wouldnt even know, because he chose to speak Hebrew while addressing the crowd in Jerusalem? Oy Vey! Dont you think its interesting that Acts 21:40 even bothers to mention that Paul spoke in Hebrew? That suggests to me that there was something noteworthy about it, like maybe it wasnt his usual practice to speak Hebrew

And it goes on in the next chapter.

Yeah, and it goes on before that too...

And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? But 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. Acts 21:37-39
Do you really think that Paul addressed the Roman captain in Hebrew? Odd that the captain didn't understand Pauls speech to "the Jews which were of Asia"...

The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. Acts 22:24

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.

I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that he was not fluent in both languages, and considering the amount of time that he spent in Palestine in comparison to the amount of time he spent travelling across the Roman empire, I'd say it was a safe bet that he primarily spoke Greek throughout his mission to the gentiles.

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).

We'll see about that shortly...

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.

It provides the basis for the author of Matthew, maybe.

Either way we will continue with an ambiguity and no absolutes that you were original trying to establish.

I'll say it again - Paul is quite consistent with his usage. You need to look outside of his writing to find the "ambiguity".

Here's a link:

Here's a better one...

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pine ... xecsum.htm

Did Jesus quote Deuteronomy in Greek then?

Does it matter?

I personally doubt whether Jesus spoke much Greek, but I'm sure that the author of Matthew did. Why do you think that a distinction was needed between Elohim and YHWH?

So you want to use the septuigant as a source text when it serves you?

Why not? You're the one who brought it up in the first place!

Show me a passage that shows clearly that Paul is using the septuigant and I will agree.

OkeyDokey. Here are a few of them...

"Rom. 2:24. The Hebrew of Isa. 52:5 reads merely, "my name continually every day is blasphemed." The Septuagint has "because of you my name is continually blasphemed aong the Gentiles," which Paul follows.
Rom 3:4. The Hebrew of Psa. 51:4 reads "and blameless when thou judgest." Paul follows the Septuagint with "and prevail when thou dost enter into judgment."
Rom. 3:12. The Hebrew of Psa. 14:3 reads, "they are together become filthy." Paul follows the Septuagint with "they are together become unprofitable."
Rom 3:14. The Hebrew of Psa. 10:7 reads, "his mouth is full of cursing and deceit." Paul follows the Septuagint with "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
Rom 9:28. The Hebrew of Isa. 10:22-23 is difficult. It seems to say, "a destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. For a completion, one that is decreed, shall the Lord Jehovah of Hosts make in the midst of all the earth." The Septuagint abbreviates with "He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness; because the Lord will make a short work in all the earth," which is followed by Paul."

If you don't like those, then how about this one, with commentary from the NAB...

For he says: "In an acceptable time I heard you, and on the day of salvation I helped you." Behold, now is a very acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 2Corinthians 6:2

"In an acceptable time: Paul cites the Septuagint text of Isaiah 49:8; the Hebrew reads "in a time of favor"; it is parallel to "on the day of salvation." Now: God is bestowing favor and salvation at this very moment, as Paul is addressing his letter to them."

Or, from the same source...

who will repay everyone according to his works: Romans 2:6

"Will repay everyone according to his works: Paul reproduces the Septuagint text of Psalm 62:12 and Proverb 24:12"

Then from that first link I provided, The Septuagint in the New Testament...

"Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable. Following the Greek, he knows that the Messiah will conquer his people's sin - not that he would come to those who had already cleansed themselves from sin, as the Hebrew would have it (Romans 11.26-27). Paul's thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12)."

"Paul leaves a clue in Galatians 3.16-17: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Does the Hebrew support a span of 430 years from the giving of the promises to Abraham and the giving of the Law? Apparently not, for the evangelical apologist Gleason Archer in his Bible Difficulties asserts that 645 years passed between those two events. Archer's conclusion is that the time interval in mind is between a subsequent confirmation of the promises (to Jacob in Genesis 46.2-4) and the production of the tablets on Sinai. This, however, seems a clever dodge. Paul says clearly that the time between God's making the promises to Abraham and the giving of the law was 430 years. Where did he get such an idea - if a careful examination of the chronology supports a number closer to 645 years? The likely explanation is that that Paul was reading the Septuagint's Exodus 12.40: "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years."

"That Paul relied upon the Septuagint is made strikingly clear from Romans 3.12-18."

(see table 10 from the linked page)

"The Hebrew for Psalm 14.3 ends with "no, not so much as one," so Paul cannot have obtained the entire quotation from this Psalm alone if he were reading from the Hebrew. In fact, if Paul were relying upon the Hebrew, he had to string together phrases from six separate locations in this passage: Psalm 14.1-3 (or 53.1-3), 5.9, 140.3, 10.7, Isaiah 59.7-9, and Psalm 36.1. It would be a remarkable coincidence if Paul - using the Hebrew alone - were to collect just these fragments in just the same order as they appear in the Septuagint. (Another explanation is that the Septuagint's rendering of Psalm 14.3 is a later modification by Christians, a falsification of the original Septuagint reading to bring it into agreement with Romans. However, if that were the case, one wonders why a more exact representation of Romans 3.10 and 11 is not presented in the Septuagint's Psalm 14.1-2, leading into the quotation in Table 9 above.) Quite plainly, the most plausible explanation is that, in Romans 3.12-18, Paul was quoting Psalm 14.3 from the Septuagint."

Need more? I have some expert testimony that Paul used the LXX too, if you like.

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

Yes there was, but kurios isn't a translation for YHWH, it's just a substitute word. YHWH doesn't mean 'master' and 'master' doesn't mean YHWH. Not only that but kurios isn't used solely as a substitute for YHWH either, it has meaning all on its own.

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.

How could a common phrase such as "thus saith the Lord" be considered original to Paul? He invented that? And yes I have shown something. Here it is again...

Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ. Phillipians 1:2

There are similar greetings from Paul's other letters too that contain that little word kai ('and'). Besides that they never say"Jesus our Father and the Lord God".

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.

Why do you keep citing instances where Paul is quoting the LXX as examples of Paul's usage? You yourself made the point that he was trained to read scripture. Would you like him to paraphrase? I did ask for something "original to Paul".

What absence of etymological evidence? The word theos is used in the LXX for both 'elohim' and YHWH. Why would you ignore that?[/quote="youngborean"]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.

But not always. You have yet to explain why a distinction should be made between 'elohim' and 'YHWH' in the first place.


But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

[Cathar1950]

As I recal most of the NT used the LXX and not Hebrew and Matthew was never in anything but Greek.

[achilles12604]

Hi again everyone.

Lotan, you and I were discussing the beliefs of the very first Christians. My premise was that if the very first Jewish converts to Christianity, believed several things, that this in turn would provide evidence for the validity of Christianity because,

1) It would show that men and women, who KNEW for a fact what happened, converted, throwing out their beliefs held for thousands of years. Since the men and women knew what they did and still converted, there must have been a very significant reason for this change of belief.

2) It would indirectly support Jesus miracles because without miracles to support his claim to be from God, he would never have attracted such a following. This argument also includes the premise that this identification is unique to Christianity, since most other religions were founded by men who never claimed to be divine or perform miracles. Since Christianity set the bar higher than any other religion, there must have been something credible to believe in or no one would have converted. Christians risked everything by claiming God's son and his miracles were true and accurate because this could be checked fairly easily. The opposite of this would be the Haley Comet folks. They never made any outrageous personal claims which they would have had to support with evidence. Theirs was a simple belief. Christianity made outrageous claims which, if false, would have irreversibly destroyed their credibility. Yet their credibility stood and many converted. This indicates that while Christianity made vastly more unique and extraordinary claims that other cults, they were able to back them up as well.


You wrote

achilles12604 wrote:
Wait . . . so it was within the bounds of Judaism 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 Judaism 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.

You also wrote

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.

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.

The beliefs in question are
1) That Jesus was sent directly from God (God's son)

2) That Jesus died and thus our sins were forgiven

3) That Jesus rose from the dead

4) All that was required for salvation was faith in Jesus and allowing him to be lord of your life.

5) Worship of Jesus was acceptable.


As I pointed out, the original Jews would have believed all of these thing to be blasphemous.

It would violate the law that there was only one God and to worship him only.

It would contradict the belief that the resurrection was a general resurrection at the end of time rather than an individual resurrection.

And it said that the actions of a man were sufficient to forgive sin which was something only God was able to do.


Judging from these three quotes

Most of the things on your list hadn't been invented yet. That is the whole point

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

Could you also show that these beliefs were shared by the Jerusalem gang

The task before me is to show that the original Christian converts from Judaism believed these things.

Since Paul's writings are the earliest and also reflect the earliest traditions, like the poetry and creeds, these are a good source for the beliefs of the earliest Christians. However, since it has been alleged that his writings are in conflict with later writings by other apostles and proponents of Christianity, first I will present Paul's writings, then a mirror passage from other books.


Point 1) God had a son

This belief should be self evident. An extremely rudimentary examination of any of the New Testament books includes this belief

Romans 1:4 "...was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. . . "

Ephesians 1:1 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."


Later writers

Hebrews 1 : 3 "The Son is the radiance of God's Glory and the exact representation of his being"

2 Peter 1: 17 " This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

1 John 1:3 " And our fellowship is with him and his Son, Jesus Christ."


Obviously, the earliest writings of the Christians which date to 15 years after Christ, present him as God's son. Later writings continue this trend showing its consistency through several decades. Also, many critics consider that certain sections of Paul's writings came from earlier creeds. Examples of this are 1 Cor. 15:3-4, and Philip 2: 5-11. The second of these examples also promotes Christ as equal status as God himself as well as God's servant sent to Earth. If this is in fact an earlier creed or poem as most scholars believe, then the Son of God idea can be traced in writing to closer than 15 years from the teaching of Christ himself. Hardly enough time for a legend of this magnitude to develop.

As I stated before this idea of God having a son whom he gave honor and power to, was blasphemy to the Jews. Throughout their writings, there is only one God and he alone is worthy of adoration, praise, and worship. Any other man claiming to be the Christ, would be committing blasphemy. This was clearly demonstrated by Jesus being charged by local authorities with committing a crime worth of death. Jesus earliest followers thought that Jesus was to be though of as the Christ, the chosen one of God, his son. If there was no evidence at all to support this claim then the men spreading those extremely blasphemous lies would have been shut down and stoned, not gather a following of people who would have known all of the facts for that time period.


Point 2) This son died for the sins of man

As before I will present Paul's writings and then writing of other men, to show consistency between various sources.

Romans 3: 25 " God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. "

1 Cor 15:3 "For what I received and passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures. That he was buried, that he raised from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures..."

Later writers

Hebrews 9:14 "How much more then will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished too God, cleanse our consciences from the acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God."

1 Peter 1:3 "In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.'

1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

As you can plainly see, once again Paul's writings take us to within about 15 years and once again the earlier creeds accepted by most scholars would take us even closer. Also, as before, this trend of belief remained constant for decades after Paul's writings.

Since this idea is in direct contradiction with the laws of the Jewish faith, ie sin is paid for by animal sacrifice and by God's acceptance of those animals, not through a MAN, we can see that unless there was some very convincing evidence to the contrary, ie the body was missing and could not be found or accounted for, miracles during his ministry, etc, very very few Jews would have considered this idea much less converted. This concept was again blasphemous to the Jews, so because so many Jews (enough to create a launching point for the Christian faith within a few years) converted, we are fairly sure there must have been a reason for their beliefs. If nothing had happened, then nothing would have happened. . . .

Point 3) This son rose from the dead

This point was covered quite a bit in point 2. Many of the passages that refer to his death also refer to his resurrection, so to save time I will not write different ones out again. Instead I will point out that this concept was not even a possibility to the Jews before Christianity. The Jews believed in a general resurrection when all men would be raised and judged. For one man to rise first, was inconceivable to these men.

This actually works as evidence for the resurrection itself as well as the validity of Christianity and the beliefs of the early converts. First, this is evidence for the resurrection itself because since this idea was not even thought of as a possibility before Jesus, and it was a possibility after his ministry, something must have happened to make it jive with their view of realistic possibility. Second this is evidence which supports Christianities claim for authenticity as a whole because this is a HUGE, Gigantic, unheard of claim which would have been really hard to accept by ANY Jew unless it had at least some basis of verification. It would have been VERY VERY easy for anyone opposed to Christianity, (Romans, Jewish authorities, competing cults, etc) to squash this new faith if the body was in fact still there. Yet, it was not harmed in the least by this tremendous claim, which lends credibility to Christianity as a whole. Lastly and most directly tied to our current topic, this belief was obviously a very early belief. If it did not have any credibility, there should have not been any converts. Yet there were. Remember, that the apostles were not claiming something which could not be proved or disproved like so many other cults. They were claiming something which could absolutely be disproved and they were claiming it very early on.

Point 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.

Paul's writings:

Romans 3:19-21 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced . . . . But now a righteousness from God, apart from the Law has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify."

Later writings

Hebrews 10:1-10 "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near for worship. . . . And by that will we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all."

Once again we can see that while Paul's writings outline this belief for the early side of the believers, later sources also agree with his words. Since the idea that the Law by which they had lived and atoned for their sins for thousands of years, was now void was not only evil and blasphemous but also impossible because God himself had set those rules, for anyone to sway from these beliefs and follow Christianity would require a great deal of persuasion and proof. Once again I point out that without this proof, no Jew would have abandoned the Law, the only thing they ever knew, for some new strange idea about a man, who could take the place of all their sacrifices and be honored by God in place of their sins. This idea, was very early and clearly revolutionary, yet it was believed.

Lastly point 5) Worship of his son was acceptable

Throughout his writings, Paul continually refers to Jesus as Lord, or Master and to himself and the other apostles as servants. He describes how Jesus will conquer every power and authority and then hand them all over to God after Judgment. On this same note Jesus is referred to as one who will judge the whole world.

These are not attributes given to a man. Especially the last attribute concerning Judgment. All of the OT states that Judgment is reserved for God alone. Yet here one that Paul refers to as Lord and savior is placed in the judge's place. This divine task was appointed to him. Since he is also to be glorified by all nations "Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess", as well as judge them, Paul's praise and adoration for Jesus is well deserved.

Note also that all this praise is in Paul's early letters again.

Turning to later writers concerning what they believed Jesus was worthy of, The first 12 verses in 1 John 5 are nothing but praise for Jesus and his power and atonement. 1 Peter says that Jesus was chosen before the creation of the world, that he was perfect, "without blemish or defect." These words were never spoken of any man. Therefore, These men years after Paul, regarded Jesus as something more than a man. He was someone to be admired, and emulated. Jesus deserved their servitude and adoration.

Jesus was considered to be above the angels themselves (Hebrews). He was the first and the last, worthy of praise. This is something no Jew would attribute to a carpenter who never did anything except teach and lead a good life. This was praise reserved for someone greater than any man.

In conclusion, I have shown from scripture that these premises were in fact held by believers in Paul's early days and in a few cases, there is good reason to think (or at least most scholars do) that these beliefs originated from before Paul. Because these beliefs are so early and also because they are so extraordinary, it is unlikely that such outlandish legends would have risen so fast without and cause and among the very people who knew truth and what actually happened.

The beliefs of the early Jews is a stumbling block to anyone who wishes to confront Jesus on a logical level. To explain away these men and womens beliefs requires at least massive jumps in logic and at most, denial of logic entirely.

[youngborean]

Do you really think that Paul addressed the Roman captain in Hebrew? Odd that the captain didn't understand Pauls speech to "the Jews which were of Asia"...

I never said that. Only by default are we left to think that Paul is able to speak greek. But the captain could have easily been asking him in aramaic if he spoke greek. I do believe that Paul spoke greek and would have been familiar with the language. My perspective is that aramaic and Hebrew were more likely his primary languages or "mother tounges", that doesn't take away in potential fluency in Greek.

I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that he was not fluent in both languages, and considering the amount of time that he spent in Palestine in comparison to the amount of time he spent travelling across the Roman empire, I'd say it was a safe bet that he primarily spoke Greek throughout his mission to the gentiles.

I have no problem with that. It's not a contrary point to what i am saying.

I personally doubt whether Jesus spoke much Greek, but I'm sure that the author of Matthew did. Why do you think that a distinction was needed between Elohim and YHWH?

Simply because they are seperate Hebrew words which were deliberately translated with sperate words to stay true to the source texts.

It provides the basis for the author of Matthew, maybe.

For NT greek more likely, which we agree is the language in question that the verisons of Paul's letters are using.

I'll say it again - Paul is quite consistent with his usage. You need to look outside of his writing to find the "ambiguity".

He is consitent. He is consistently calling jesus the son and god the father divine equivalents with seperate identities. A true doctrine of the trinity.

keyDokey. Here are a few of them...

Excellent. Then Paul would be familiar with the general rule that was used to translate Deut quoted by Matthew. And since you seem to agree that he knew both hebrew and Greek he would have been especially familiar with the translation of synonyms from the Hebrew texts to greek.

Yes there was, but kurios isn't a translation for YHWH, it's just a substitute word.

You'll have to explain the difference of a translation and a substitute word. This is a pointless distinction. All translations are subsitute words.

How could a common phrase such as "thus saith the Lord" be considered original to Paul? icon_blink He invented that? And yes I have shown something. Here it is again...

Anything original to Paul tells of nothing of his beliefs of hebrew words. They are original phrases. It is an entire ambiguity in regards to the hebrew words or ideas he is speaking of. But he uses Kurios for the tetragrammaton. That is unambigious. There is no way for you to prove that Kurios and Theos aren't synonyms in every instance of the 2 phrases you are putting forward. Especially when Paul has used Kurios in reference to the tetragrammaton which I already clearly established in my argument. My point is very simple. You have admitted that "saith the lord" it is not original to Paul. It is a colloquial saying. And this common saying in Greek of a Hebrew phrase uses Kurios. So clearly Paul is familiar with using Kurios in reference to the tetragrammaton. We can not trace a similar instance of Paul's original phrases because they have no direct link to the OT, therefore it is ambiguous. I have shown unambiguiosly that Paul is capable of using the Kurios in reference to the tetragrammaton. So if he uses the same word in another phrase, it has to be taken into account as a possiblity of his intention of meaning.

But not always. You have yet to explain why a distinction should be made between 'elohim' and 'YHWH' in the first place.

Sure not always. But you are the one that started an argument of absolutes. Which has been falsified by multiple uses of Kurios for the tetragrammaton in the NT with Paul included. The distinction is made for reason a distinction was made in Matthew 4:7. NT greek and the septuigant in this part of Deut had a mechanism way to translate synonyms when they are used together, nothing more. This mechanism was to use Kurios for YHWH and Theos for Elohim. Paul only upholds the language tradition of christians of that time by using synonyms for Hebrew divinity to describe 2 distinct entities.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

A wonderful trinitarian statement by Paul who understood sound theology. You can call it whatever you like, but only with an ambiguity in the exact language that paul is using.

[Lotan]

Lotan, you and I were discussing the beliefs of the very first Christians. My premise was that if the very first Jewish converts to Christianity, believed several things, that this in turn would provide evidence for the validity of Christianity because,

1) It would show that men and women, who KNEW for a fact what happened, converted, throwing out their beliefs held for thousands of years.

2) It would indirectly support Jesus miracles because without miracles to support his claim to be from God, he would never have attracted such a following.

There were plenty of others during the first century who also attracted large followings (ie John the Baptist, the 'Egyptian', Theudas, etc). By this line of reasoning, all these men must have performed miracles as well. In fact, all religious leaders who have attracted large followings must have also performed miracles.

The beliefs in question are
1) That Jesus was sent directly from God (God's son)

2) That Jesus died and thus our sins were forgiven

3) That Jesus rose from the dead

4) All that was required for salvation was faith in Jesus and allowing him to be lord of your life.

5) Worship of Jesus was acceptable.

As I pointed out, the original Jews would have believed all of these thing to be blasphemous.

For the most part, yes they would. However, it would depend on one's interpretation. For example, #1; it would not violate Judahist belief to believe that Jesus was God's son, because after all, God had many 'sons' (ie David), so belief that Jesus was a messiah (a Judahist concept) would naturally include the idea that he was also God's son, sent by God, as all good things are. Other Judahists might not agree that Jesus was a messiah, but the idea itself wouldn't be blasphemous. It was a later Christian development that took "son of God" to a whole new level. Some of these other beliefs could be interpreted within Judahism as well; Jesus couldn't 'worshipped' exactly, but he could be 'revered' as was Moses or Elijah.

The task before me is to show that the original Christian converts from Judaism believed these things.

Bingo! By "original" I hope that you mean those who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus.

Since Paul's writings are the earliest and also reflect the earliest traditions, like the poetry and creeds, these are a good source for the beliefs of the earliest Christians.

Kaboom! This is where your entire argument falls flat.

Paul's writings are the earliest...that have survived!
This premise ignores some very important evidence, that even the most conservative view can't deny...
An earlier group of Jesus' followers existed in Jerusalem (the 'James gang'). Unlike Paul, they actually knew Jesus during his lifetime. Is it reasonable to expect that they were all illiterate, and possessed no writings of their own?
In the course of the Jewish Revolt the city of Jerusalem (including Jesus' followers and any alleged writings) was utterly destroyed.
In the centuries following, the eventual Christian 'orthodoxy' systematically destroyed any writings they deemed 'heretical'.
Besides, Paul's writings may not even be the earliest that we have- the gospel of Thomas (or at least portions of it) might actually be just as early, if not even earlier.

The next part is entirely circular - Because traditions like creeds and such follow Paul, then Paul must be the earliest tradition? Sure, but it still ignores the existence of an even earlier tradition with even closer ties to Jesus. Just because Paul's views 'won out' doesn't mean that they were the earliest.

However, since it has been alleged that his writings are in conflict with later writings by other apostles and proponents of Christianity, first I will present Paul's writings, then a mirror passage from other books.

This line of reasoning fails for the very reasons that I have already mentioned. Paul's views survived, the James gang views did not. Later writing would have to reflect that historical reality.

Obviously, the earliest writings of the Christians which date to 15 years after Christ, present him as God's son. Later writings continue this trend showing its consistency through several decades.

Same mistake, same answer.
This is why I have not addressed either the claims that you listed; because they are (arguably) original to Paul, and the subsequent writings are developments of Paul's ideas. You have to show that Paul's got his ideas from, or at least had the same ideas as, the Jerusalem Christians. Until you do that, the evidence of later writings is irrelevant.

If there was no evidence at all to support this claim then the men spreading those extremely blasphemous lies would have been shut down and stoned, not gather a following of people who would have known all of the facts for that time period.

Or else they weren't making those claims.
Exactly! Along with the bogus 'why would the apostles lie' argument, this is a very good reason to believe that the earliest tradition, the one followed by the original followers of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem, did not include these sort of claims, at least not in the form that they were later interpreted. We know that the Jerusalem church got along quite well in the years following Jesus' death. If they were the blasphemers that you claim they were, they would not have lasted 5 minutes. Paul, on the other hand, got himself beat up everywhere he went.
It's not for nothing that Paul has been called the 'inventor' of Christianity.

Obviously, the earliest writings of the Christians which date to 15 years after Christ, present him as God's son.

He was in good company then. Many others had also been referred to as "God's son". The meaning of the phrase is subjective. All men were God's sons. Calling someone by that phrase implied that they had been singled out for God's favor (as a King might be).

As I stated before this idea of God having a son whom he gave honor and power to, was blasphemy to the Jews.

That's news. God had a son named David to whom he gave honor and power. Was that blasphemy too?

Point 2) This son died for the sins of man

The doctrine of the atonement was an apologetic, designed to answer the question "If Jesus was so great, why did he get himself killed?". In the absence of (or maybe in spite of) real evidence concerning this question, Jesus' followers looked to OT scripture for answers (ie. wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities Isaiah 53:5) and wound up with the passion story as we know it today. Paul came to this conclusion (was he the first?), but the best evidence is that the Ebionites (followers of the James gang) did not.

Paul tells us himself that his 'gospel' doesn't come from Jerusalem...

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12

Paul didn't get his gospel from any man, including those who followed Jesus through Galilee.

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 1Corinthians 11:23-24

So this eucharistic tradition was recieved by Paul "from the Lord" (in a vision) and not from Jesus' original followers, who would have attended the 'Last Supper' had there been one.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense against those who would pass judgment on me 2 is this. 1 Corinthians 1-3

Paul considers himself an "apostle" because he believes that he has seen Jesus. Paul is not an apostle "for others". The Jerusalem 'Christians' didn't consider him a true apostle, but they made a deal anyway...

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Corinthians 5:3

Paul believes that Jesus "died for our sins according to the scriptures" NOT according to say, Peter.

But when it pleased him who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles: immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter: and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. Galatians 1:15-19

Paul didn't need nobody, least of all any other apostles to tell him what Jesus did or who he was during his lifetime.

Not only did Paul not receive his gospel from James, Peter, et al. he was also in opposition to them. The 'Acts of the Apostles' goes to great lengths to gloss over these differences.

Paul tells us himself...

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Galatians 2:11

Peter didn't want to dine with gentiles in front of his Jewish friends! The NAB Bible commentary explains it well enough...

"[11-14] The decision reached in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3-7) recognized the freedom of Gentile Christians from the Jewish law. But the problem of table fellowship between Jewish Christians, who possibly still kept kosher food regulations, and Gentile believers was not yet settled. When Cephas first came to the racially mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal 2:12), he ate with non-Jews. Pressure from persons arriving later from Jerusalem caused him and Barnabas to draw back. Paul therefore publicly rebuked Peter's inconsistency toward the gospel (Gal 2:14). Some think that what Paul said on that occasion extends through Gal 2:16, 21.

[11] Clearly was wrong: literally, "stood condemned," by himself and also by Paul. His action in breaking table fellowship was especially grievous if the eating involved the meal at the Lord's supper (cf 1 Cor 11:17-25)."

So, unless you want to argue that Peter wasn't an original follower of Jesus, you have to admit that Paul had different beliefs in this matter. And this was after the council of Jerusalem, 17 years after Paul's conversion!

Here is the basic argument (admittedly from a hostile source)...

"While Paul was preaching what was essentially his own innovative theology about Jesus, what was going on with the apostles; the ones who knew the earthly Jesus was, and were aware of his teachings? Of course Christian mythology, primarily through the Acts of the Apostles and the forgeries known as the Petrine epistles, have presented the teachings of apostles as being essentially in harmony with Paul and his teaching. That this was not the case is what we will be showing here.

The problem can be traced to Paul's preaching to the Gentiles. After complaints by Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, Paul was summoned to Jerusalem to meet the church there headed by James, Peter and John. In this so-called "Jerusalem Council" an uneasy truce was agreed upon by both parties. It was a truce that did not last. For immediately following the council meeting, an incident occurred at Antioch which, in retrospect, severed forever the ties between Paul and the Jerusalem church.

While Paul wanted to keep some ties to the Jerusalem Church, it was obvious that the latter did not share the same sentiments. Indeed the evidence from Paul's own epistles show that the Jerusalem church, headed by James, actively opposed Paul's missionary activities by sending out emissaries of their own to combat his gospel.

Paul's final attempt to reconcile himself to the Jerusalem Church, by delivering the collection he promised during the "Jerusalem council", met with failure. A careful reading of the evidence shows that the Paul's collection was rejected by the Jerusalem Church and that they very probably "had a hand" in Paul's arrest!

We can conclude that the Jerusalem church, which consisted of Jesus' brothers and the apostles who knew the earthly Jesus (such as Peter and John), never accepted Paul as a "fellow apostle". Indeed, their intense opposition to Paul's mission can only mean that they viewed Paul's theology as heretical."

So, in a nutshell-

The original followers of Jesus held beliefs that were not outside the bounds of Second Temple Judahism, so there was no need for a conspiracy. Paul (not an original follower) developed different beliefs, based on personal revelation and scriptural exegesis. Jerusalem was wiped off the map. Paul's version prevailed.

As a postscript, besides simply saying that Paul's beliefs differed from those of the original followers, some attempt should be made to state what their beliefs actually were...

From Nazarenes and Ebionites - An Introduction
"As far as "beliefs" of the Ebionites, the documents of the New Testament, critically evaluated, are among our best sources. There are fragments and quotations surviving from their Hebrew Gospel tradition (see see A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, E. J. Brill, 1992), as well as the text of "Hebrew Matthew" preserved by Ibn Shaprut, and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). Based on what we can reliably put together from other sources we can say the Ebionite/Nazarene movement could be distinguished by the following views:

1. Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God.
2. Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses.
3. Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the "easy yoke" halacha of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the "True Faith," the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had lost.
4. Rejection of the "doctrines and traditions" of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses, including scribal alterations of the texts of Scripture (Jeremiah 8:8).
How the earliest group/s viewed Paul is unclear. By some reports he was tolerated or accepted as one who could go to the Gentiles with a version of the Nazarene message (Acts 15, 21). Others apparently believed he was an apostate from the Torah and founder of a new religionChristianity."

[achilles12604]

Lotan, you and I were discussing the beliefs of the very first Christians. My premise was that if the very first Jewish converts to Christianity, believed several things, that this in turn would provide evidence for the validity of Christianity because,

1) It would show that men and women, who KNEW for a fact what happened, converted, throwing out their beliefs held for thousands of years.

2) It would indirectly support Jesus miracles because without miracles to support his claim to be from God, he would never have attracted such a following.

There were plenty of others during the first century who also attracted large followings (ie John the Baptist, the 'Egyptian', Theudas, etc). By this line of reasoning, all these men must have performed miracles as well. In fact, all religious leaders who have attracted large followings must have also performed miracles.

This was not the logic I presented. I think that there is a misunderstanding on the direction of proof.



My line of reasoning. . .


1) Christianity was the only cult who's leader was claimed to perform miracles and rise from the dead.

2) This was a huge burden of proof taken on by Christians.

3) This burden was not taken on by anyone else from the period.

4) With this huge burden of proof, great evidence to support these claims must have been required or else the outrageous claim would have been proven false and the cult would have been viewed as a failed cult without support.

5) Early Christian converts would have been in the position to know the facts surrounding Jesus and his ministry. They would have known if the miracels and missing body was a lie.

6) Because they converted from a faith with held that these new beliefs were blasphemous, we can safely assume that they did not believe the new claims to be lies. Otherwise they would not have converted.

7) There must have been some very convincing evidences to support their decision because they were in the position to know truth from lies.

8) Hence, there is support for Jesus miracles.


Your line of thinking that this applies to anyone gathering a following only holds true if certian factors are met.

1) The leader of the religion must have claimed divine authority and also claimed that he/she performed miracles up to and including rising from the dead, to support their claim.

2) The persons converting must have been in a position to know (key word) if the events in question were true or not (ie miracles and ressurection)

3) These people must have converted from a faith which held the total opposite viewpoint of their new faith, up to the point that their new faith was blasphemous to their old one.

4) These people must convert with the knowledge that the leader claims miraculous deeds (including ressurection) as well as knowledge of facts supporting these deeds.

[Lotan]

I think that there is a misunderstanding on the direction of proof.

There is no misunderstanding. You said "...without miracles to support his claim to be from God, he would never have attracted such a following.". If you meant something else then it's not my fault. I simply showed why this line of reasoning is faulty.
In any case, it doesn't matter. You are still making the same arguments that were addressed in the bulk of my reply. See to them and you will also why this business about miracles is redundant. In the meantime, I need to respond to youngborean's post.

[achilles12604]

Kaboom! This is where your entire argument falls flat.

Paul's writings are the earliest...that have survived!
This premise ignores some very important evidence, that even the most conservative view can't deny...
An earlier group of Jesus' followers existed in Jerusalem (the 'James gang'). Unlike Paul, they actually knew Jesus during his lifetime. Is it reasonable to expect that they were all illiterate, and possessed no writings of their own?
In the course of the Jewish Revolt the city of Jerusalem (including Jesus' followers and any alleged writings) was utterly destroyed.
In the centuries following, the eventual Christian 'orthodoxy' systematically destroyed any writings they deemed 'heretical'.
Besides, Paul's writings may not even be the earliest that we have- the gospel of Thomas (or at least portions of it) might actually be just as early, if not even earlier.

OK If this is the point were you feel my arguement falls apart then lets examine this more closely.

"James Gang" seems to be a theory of excuse created by you. Since you admit that you have none of their writings, how do you know they believed a doctrine which is totally opposite of the beliefs appearing 10-15 years later? This seems to be a tremendous leap of faith.

Your theory of JG knowing some secret writings and deeds of Jesus, and that all of their writings were totally destroyed thus creating a conspiracy for the currently accepted view of Jesus, is unsupported, logically unsound and totally opinion. This is equivalent to me claiming that there are tons of Jewish accounts which document exact times and places of Jesus miracles but they were all destroyed by the Jews and other anti-Christian forces during the persecution. But since I know they were written, this proves that Jesus did miracles and the Jews documented them.

Even you can surely see the weakness in your arguement.

You claim that JG knew the truth and the real Jesus but. . .

1) You have no documentation supporting this by your own admission.

2) Christians who were alive and present believed my version of things by the time Paul's writings occured (and probably earlier based on the creeds I mentioned)

It seems all of the evidence is fairly one sided one this discussion and since this was the main place where I supposedly messed up according to your post, Your main point of attack, is REALLY WEAK. (in other words, totally unsupported) Really really weak.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, I have looked over several of the commentary on this Gospel from www.earlychristianwritings.com, and most of them (even the huge supporters of the Gospel), as well as the Jesus seminar, can not date this Gospel any earlier than 70-80. The more Christian commentaries date this Gospel to second century for good reasons including:

1) the dating of the last known copy

2) the dependence of Thomas on prior Gospels

3) The Gnostic appearance of the writings of the gospel

4) The fact that it was discovered in the Nag Hammaurabi library with other gospels from the 2nd century.

So your claim that it was written before Paul's letters is not even accepted by the most anti-Jesus, liberal scholars I can find.

[achilles12604]

I think that there is a misunderstanding on the direction of proof.

There is no misunderstanding. You said "...without miracles to support his claim to be from God, he would never have attracted such a following.". If you meant something else then it's not my fault. I simply showed why this line of reasoning is faulty.
In any case, it doesn't matter. You are still making the same arguments that were addressed in the bulk of my reply. See to them and you will also why this business about miracles is redundant. In the meantime, I need to respond to youngborean's post.

Now who is inserting words into the other person's mouth? I gave a detailed account of what I meant exactly. You can twist it however you wish, but anyone reading our commentary will know the difference between citing events in the transition to Christianity as evidence for miracles, and arguing in circles.

Incidentally if I were argueing in circles I would have started with "Jesus did miracles." I started with "Jesus followers claimed that he did miracles so what is the evidence supporting this logically."

Big difference.

Also, you pulled out my conclusion when you wrote

You said "...without miracles to support his claim to be from God, he would never have attracted such a following.".

However, you totally ignored the logical process by which I supported this.

If you are going to attack my arguement, attack all of it, not a single line.

[achilles12604]

The next part is entirely circular - Because traditions like creeds and such follow Paul, then Paul must be the earliest tradition? Sure, but it still ignores the existence of an even earlier tradition with even closer ties to Jesus. Just because Paul's views 'won out' doesn't mean that they were the earliest.

Isn't is a fallicious arguement to argue that there were earlier traditions than the ones presented by Paul, and then point out that there is no evidence at all supporting your theory but only because it must have all been destroyed?