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.

[achilles12604]

Lotan wrote:

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.

The Jerusalem Church got along quite well? This doesn't really concure with Josephus who mentions Stephen and James being stoned does it?

Remember our earlier conversation about misinformation? Your post is not in line with the reports of either the Jews, the early Christian fathers (who's writings about who was killed is not suspect), or the accounts in Paul's early letters.

A whole bunch of people, including Jews writing about the persecution of the church, must be wrong for your theory to be right. Did they all lie too or was the conspiracy so wide spread that it included these men?

[achilles12604]

Now finally lets examine your scriptures. . .

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.

You are right. Paul tells us where he gets his gospel. This does NOT mean that he was preaching a different Gospel than the Apostles. In fact we see this just a few verses later.

Gal 2 :6-11

6As for those who seemed to be importantwhatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearancethose men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Lotan, why would the apostles endorse Paul and send him to the Gentiles with a message which was totally different then the one they were preaching?

Also, since you so graceously pointed out that Paul recieved his Gospel from somewhere other than the apostles, if the Gospel was the same, this doesn't make much sense unless Jesus did in fact give it to him. (eerie huh?)

Next you wrote

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...

Once again doesn't Gal 2: 6-11 show that he was accepted as an apostle? I suggest you post some verses that show Paul was not accepted s an apostle rather than just claiming it.

Next you wrote

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.

A perfect example of so what? Why would Paul write according to Peter when he was trying to make the point that the old testament scriptures foretold Jesus life and death? This is a red herring.

Next you attack Paul's comments to Peter about his behavior concerning gentiles.

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!

Peter was a Jew. Jews didn't like Gentiles. Paul showed Peter that this old tradition was no longer acceptable. Why a disagreement between apostles about eating with Gentiles is the best evidence you can find that their Gospels must have been different, I will never know. However, pointing to a disagreement about actions taken by a man that his friend didn't agree with as evidence for a difference in the Gospels they preached . . . .

this is such a jump I can not even figure out which part to address. These ideas arn't even connected. Therefore I am dropping it having shown the illogical jump you made from point A Paul and Peter disgreed about Peter's attitude towards gentiles to point W Thier Gospels must be different.

After citing a source with no author and only two sources for their information, both from other anti-christian sites you wrote:

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.

In a nutshell, misinformation was written by someone (whom we do not know because the author doesn't even take credit for his own piece), who read sources which were also anti-christian. You told me you hate the spread of misinformation. What do you call citing a source which does not even have an author and which doesn't cite its sources of information for the claims it is making? I call it, spreading misinformation.

The next section was taken from a source which once again does not cite its sources. However attempting to give credit to it until disproved I searched and I found that the idea held in this source of yours are championed by Robert Eisenman and his opinions and theories are "widely criticized". Most of the Ebonites connection to James is hyothesized through such litterature as Apocryphon of James
First Apocalpyse of James Second Apocalypse of James
Gospel of the Egyptians
from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JD ... urces.html.

Outside of these books, there is no evidence that James had anything to do with the Essenes.

Another point which I fnd interesting is that Josephus speaks of James' death in 62AD. Your source places the ebonites from 30 AD. This is hard to explain if their beliefs were based on Jesus ministry which wasn't even done until around 33AD. Is this beginning to sound like a bogus theory to anyone but me? If James died in 62 AD and the Essene movement did not peter out until around 80AD according to your source, this allows for 30 years for James the Just to write about his beliefs. Once again, nothing like this has ever been found. However, the Gospel of James was found which has good evidence supporting his authorship. This Gospel is nothing like the Essenes beliefs. But it does reflect the Christians beliefs.

So basically your source is a theory based on one mans ideas which is not accepted by many scholars, which contains errors, lacks supportive literature, and is contrary to known writings.

Not a great source, but I did learn some things.


In conclusion, you objections are noted, but as a whole they are based on sources which are either totally untrustworthy (like your geocities site which doesn't bother to cite the author much less any other sources of information) or else they are derived from grevious leaps in logic on your part and misreading texts.

PS

Geocities was cited by cathar earlier. This source stated that the Gospels were based on writing from Josephus. However, Josephus did not write the section in question until 93AD which is after all accepted dates for Mark, and most accpeted dates for Luke and possibly matthew.

Geocities is very quickly showing itself to be entirely untrustworthy. They are spreading lies. Flat lies. Misinformation if you will.

Just something to think about when you consider which atheist source to use.

[Lotan]

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.

If the (Roman) captain spoke Aramaic why would he need to threaten Paul with scourging in order to find out why the other Jews got so mad?

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.

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, according to the NT, he could read and speak Greek.

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

At least we agree on that now. What happened to the "common tradition about Paul at the time"? (Actually, I don't want to know...)
I don't know if it is accurate to say that there is a "NT greek". Each author had their own idiosyncratic way of writing in koine. It still remains an inference that Paul's usage must have matched the usage of others.

He is consitent. He is consistently calling jesus the son and god the father divine equivalents with seperate identities.

"equivalents"?

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:28

So Jesus was "subject" to God?

For he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we will live with him through the power of God toward you. 2 Corinthians 13:4

Not his own power, "the power of God".

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

The head of Christ is God? That doesn't sound like "equivalents".

And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's. 1 Corinthians 3:23

There is Paul's conception of the holy pecking order in a nutshell. Christ is your boss, and God is his boss. It couldn't be clearer.

A true doctrine of the trinity.

Holy anachronism, Batman!

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.

That would explain how he could use kurios when talking about Jesus, and also use it when quoting from the LXX.

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

Not at all. As you know quite well, the word 'Lord', in any language, is a substitute for the holy name YHWH. It is not a translation. 'YHWH' according to Strong's means "self-Existent or Eternal" and is derived from 'hayah', "to exist". The word 'Lord' is used as a place marker only to prevent uttering the inutterable. As you also know, the word 'HaShem' "the name" is also an acceptable substitute, and some modern Bibles use 'the ETERNAL'. The use of 'Lord' as opposed to alternatives reflects the nature of the relationship between God and man. Jesus himself calls God 'Lord'...

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. Mark 12:29-30

See? It's "our" God, not 'your' God.

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.

As I said before, would you prefer that he paraphrase? Because Paul's original usage is ambiguous, we need not assert that his use of kurios must inevitably mean YHWH.

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.

Except for that little word kai. And the instances where theos and kurios are respectively subject and object (or vice versa).

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.

Ok, it's a possibility. Paul's "intention of meaning" is that kurios means 'Lord'. Kurios can be used for YHWH, but that is not its meaning. Lord (or master) can be used other contexts as well.

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.

I'm really looking for a clear answer here. Are you implying that from the book of Genesis on up that the authors of the Bible used elohim to refer to one entity (Father?) and YHWH to refer to another distinct entity (Son?)? Personally, I'd say that there were originally a whole gang of elohim and that YHWH was the top dog, more in line with the documentary hypothesis. I don't think it's fair to put either documentary or trinitarian expectations on Paul though. He was just expressing his relationship to JC as best he could.

[Cathar1950]

achilles12604

The Jerusalem Church got along quite well? This doesn't really concure with Josephus who mentions Stephen and James being stoned does it?

In Josephus, Steven was a servant of a Roman and was killed. He had nothing to do with the Christians.
This is from "James the brother of Jesus" but I think Lotan mentioned it before in another thread. Crown means Steven or Steven means crown and the author of Luke got it confused with the story of James when he was using it to create his little Luke-Acts books. Also The Jews did not kill James. It was done by the High Priest when the Roman governor. was away and the Jews complained about James death and then they got ride of the High Priest. Get your details right.

[achilles12604]

Also The Jews did not kill James. It was done by the High Priest when the Roman governor. was away and the Jews complained about James death and then they got ride of the High Priest. Get your details right.

He was killed by a mob stoning him. Yes or no?

This mob was Jewish. Yes or no?

The order to kill James was given by the head of Jewish authorities. Yes or no?

As for details, that is rich coming from someone who dates Luke to 150 AD, cites cources that say the Gospels are dependent on Jospehus, and claim that even poor sources should be used.

Your track record is a little lacking to be telling me to check my details.

[achilles12604]

Also The Jews did not kill James. It was done by the High Priest when the Roman governor. was away and the Jews complained about James death and then they got ride of the High Priest. Get your details right.

He was killed by a mob stoning him. Yes or no?

This mob was Jewish. Yes or no?

The order to kill James was given by the head of Jewish authorities. Yes or no?

And I didn't write Steven. I wrote Stephen.

As for details, that is rich coming from someone who dates Luke to 150 AD, cites cources that say the Gospels are dependent on Jospehus, and claim that even poor sources should be used.

Your track record is a little lacking to be telling me to check my details.

[Lotan]

Reply to Post 58

"James Gang" seems to be a theory of excuse created by you.

It must also be a "theory of excuse created by" Paul and the author of Acts then, as they both mention it.

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?

The Bible tells me so.
To begin with "totally opposite" are your words, not mine.

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.

What "secret writings and deeds" are you talking about? The NT tells us that Peter and James, at least, accompanied JC on his earthly mission. If anyone knew what went on during that mission, they did. The NT also tells us that they settled in Jerusalem after Jesus' death and ran their own ministry until the Fall of Jerusalem, which Josephus describes in vivd detail. The only part of the story that is not attested is the presence (or not) of writings among the Jerusalem 'Christians'. I offered no opinion, but merely asked yours...

Is it reasonable to expect that they were all illiterate, and possessed no writings of their own?

It's a simple question, but you haven't answered.
We might also consider the testimony of the author of Luke

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; Luke 1:1,2

And where were these "eyewitnesses"? The author of Luke tells us that too

And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. Acts 1:4

Now, it is nowhere stated that "those things" that were "delivered""unto us" were written, but it is also nowhere stated that they were not.

IF there were any such writngs, they would have been destroyed, along with everything else, during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Whether they wrote down their beliefs or not is immaterial to the argument that their beliefs differed significantly from those of Paul, as we shall see.

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.

No, it's not equivalent. It's not unreasonable (IMV) to surmise that the Jerusalem 'Christians' possessed their own documents, but I'm not claiming that they did, nor am I claiming to know what these documents might have contained if it was shown that they did exist. I'm only allowing for the possibility that these documents would have pre-dated Paul's letters, as the Jerusalem church itself did. Thats all.

Even you can surely see the weakness in your arguement.

Maybe if I look real hard...

...nope!

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

No, the NT claims that the apostles remained in Jerusalem after Jesus death. Im just pointing it out. Do you think that James and Peter did not know "the truth and the real Jesus"?

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

I admitted no such thing! The NT (especially Acts and Pauls epistles) documents the existence of the Jerusalem Christians quite well.

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)

"Christians who were alive and present" where?
If by your "version of things" you mean Pauls version of things, then of course they did. But if you pick up a newspaper, youll see that people believe all sorts of things. So what? What is important is what the earliest tradition, that is Jesus original followers, who actually knew him while he was alive believed, not latecomers who never met him, even if they are as early as Paul. I dont think you understand that.

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.

You're really, really funny.

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.

Im not surprised. There is still scholarly support that portions of gThomas (hint it rhymes with 'Q') might be among the earliest traditions that can actually be traced back to Jesus of Nazareth. BTW, notice that I said 'might'. I said 'might' the first time too.

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.

What claim?

I still think that you're making the same mistake, by assuming that the oldest extant documents reflect the earliest beliefs. This is an 'apples and oranges' sort of logical error.

.

Reply to Post 59

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

Oh, all right

Your argument (all of it) re: 'miracles' fails because by conflating the beliefs and interpretations of the miracle claims made by Pauline Christians with those of the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry you are begging the question.

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?

It probably would be. Thats why Im not doing that. I never said (I seem to be using that phrase a lot, lately) that there was "no evidence at all". The NT describes the different views of Paul and the Jerusalem church regarding Torah observance quite well, as do some of the early 'church Fathers'.

.

Reply to Post 61

The Jerusalem Church got along quite well? This doesn't really concure with Josephus who mentions Stephen and James being stoned does it?

Josephus mentions Stephen? Which Josephus is that?
As for James, lets see what Josephus (thats Flavius) has to say

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." (You can read the entire account here.)

So yeah, James got killed, but Ananus, the high priest and from a powerful line of high priests was deposed because of it. And especially pertinent to our discussion is Josephus mention of "those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws", that is the most Torah-observant citizens, "disliked what was done"! I cant imagine anyone making a fuss about the murder of some lowlife heretic. Apparently James was pretty well connected too.

Remember our earlier conversation about misinformation?

How could I forget?

Your post is not in line with the reports of either the Jews, the early Christian fathers (who's writings about who was killed is not suspect), or the accounts in Paul's early letters.

Oh drat!
Explain the ongoing existence of the Jerusalem church then. They werent in hiding. James worshipped at the Temple regularly. They even brought Paul there for a bath! After James death, his brother Simeon took his place as leader.
(Just for fun, would you explain why the early Christian fathers writings about who was killed are not suspect? Were they Vulcans?)

A whole bunch of people, including Jews writing about the persecution of the church, must be wrong for your theory to be right. Did they all lie too or was the conspiracy so wide spread that it included these men?

What conspiracy?
I dont deny that Christians have been persecuted, even if the accounts have been somewhat exaggerated. What matters to this discussion is which Christians were persecuted and where and when.



Reply to Post 62

You are right. Paul tells us where he gets his gospel. This does NOT mean that he was preaching a different Gospel than the Apostles. In fact we see this just a few verses later.

Gal 2 :6-11

Lotan, why would the apostles endorse Paul and send him to the Gentiles with a message which was totally different then the one they were preaching?

Now that is a good question.
Im tempted to say that they did it for the money, but I doubt that it was that simple. I think its fair to say that Paul could be persuasive, and they may have felt that they couldnt stop him anyway, but I would be surprised if their endorsement of Pauls mission was as whole hearted as Paul makes it out to be, especially in light of later developments.

Also, since you so graceously pointed out that Paul recieved his Gospel from somewhere other than the apostles, if the Gospel was the same, this doesn't make much sense unless Jesus did in fact give it to him. (eerie huh?)

Umm, eerie no.
Unless you dont believe that Paul had originally persecuted Christians and had never heard of them or about them. Besides you havent shown that his gospel was the same as that of James & Peter.

Once again doesn't Gal 2: 6-11 show that he was accepted as an apostle? I suggest you post some verses that show Paul was not accepted s an apostle rather than just claiming it.

Whats an apostle? Paul claims the title for himself because no one else does.

A perfect example of so what? Why would Paul write according to Peter when he was trying to make the point that the old testament scriptures foretold Jesus life and death? This is a red herring.

Not a herring. Show me where Peter makes a similar claim about Jesus death "according to the scriptures" and then you have a point. Until then Paul is claiming his interpretation of scripture as a source and NOT Peter or any other of Jesus apostles. Paul tells us that in Gal. 1:11.

Peter was a Jew.

I thought he was a Christian!

Paul showed Peter that this old tradition was no longer acceptable. Why a disagreement between apostles about eating with Gentiles is the best evidence you can find that their Gospels must have been different, I will never know. However, pointing to a disagreement about actions taken by a man that his friend didn't agree with as evidence for a difference in the Gospels they preached . . . .

this is such a jump I can not even figure out which part to address. These ideas arn't even connected. Therefore I am dropping it having shown the illogical jump you made from point A Paul and Peter disgreed about Peter's attitude towards gentiles to point W Thier Gospels must be different.

Well its all about Torah observance isnt it? Isnt that what this thread is about? All those heretical claims being made by the earliest Christians? Except that those earliest Christians were devout Judahists. Paul says "they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" and then goes on a rant about "the law" for the next two chapters. Does that sound like everyone was seeing eye to eye? The differences between Pauls view and that of the Jerusalem bunch are expressed concisely here

"Council of Jerusalem
Held in 51 AD. All living Apostles participated, and Saint Peter presided. The Council decreed that circumcision, dietary regulations, and various requirements of Mosaic law did not apply to Gentile converts. This is vehemently opposed by Judaizers who argued that observance of Mosiac Law was necessary for salvation."

Lets see

51 AD would be about 20 years since Jesus death, and by Pauls account 17 years into his ministry (please correct me if Im wrong). So after all that time, the Council decides that gentiles, not Jews, need not follow the Torah. And this is the group that you would have us believe is spouting heresies! By your own argument they wouldnt have lived til 51 AD if they had!

After citing a source with no author and only two sources for their information, both from other anti-christian sites you wrote:

Please spare me any speeches about sources, and just deal with the content, if thats possible.

Most of the Ebonites connection to James is hyothesized through such litterature as Apocryphon of James
First Apocalpyse of James Second Apocalypse of James
Gospel of the Egyptians
from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JD ... urces.html.

Missing File - 404 Error Page

Sorry, but we could not locate the file you requested.
Too bad. Id like to know how you came to the conclusion that "most" of the Ebionites connection to James is through apocrypha. Is it based on one opinion only?
Later Ebionites themselves claimed to be descendents of the Jerusalem Christians. You may scoff at that but compare their claim to Paul who claims authority through revelation.

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

"Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law. These, ceasing to be in touch with the bulk of the Christian world, would gradually have drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy and become formal heretics." (emphasis mine)

And from JewishEncyclopedia.com

"The early Christians called themselves preferably "Ebionim" (the poor; comp. Epiphanius, l.c. xxx. 17; Minucius Felix Octavius, ch. 36), because they regarded self-imposed poverty as a meritorious method of preparation for the Messianic kingdom, according to Luke vi. 20, 24: "Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God"; and "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation" (=Messianic share; Matt. v. 3, "the poor in spirit," is a late modification of the original; comp. Luke iv. 18, vii. 22; Matt. xix. 21 et seq., xxvi. 9 et seq.; Luke xix. 8; John xii. 5; Rom. xv. 26; II Cor. vi. 10, viii. 9; Gal. ii. 10; James ii. 5 et seq.). Accordingly they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in communistic societies (Acts iv. 34 et seq.). In this practise the Essenes also were encouraged, partly by Messianic passages, such as Isa. xi. 4, xlix. 3 (comp. Ex. R. xxxi.), partly by Deut. xv. 11: "The poor shall never cease out of the land"a passage taken to be a warning not to embark upon commerce when the study of the Law is thereby neglected (Ta'an. 21a; comp. also Mek., Beshallaḥ, ii., ed. Weiss, 56; see notes).
Origen (l.c. ii. 1), while not clear as to the precise meaning of the term "Ebionim," gives the more important testimony that all Judo-Christians were called "Ebionites." The Christians that fled to the trans-Jordanic land (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 5, 3), remaining true to their Judean traditions, were afterward regarded as a heretic sect of the Ebionites, and hence rose the legend of Ebion. To them belonged Symmachus, the Bible translator (ib. vi. 17)." (emphasis mine, again)

Outside of these books, there is no evidence that James had anything to do with the Essenes.

I dont recall claiming that he did, and you havent shown that he did not.

Another point which I fnd interesting is that Josephus speaks of James' death in 62AD. Your source places the ebonites from 30 AD. This is hard to explain if their beliefs were based on Jesus ministry which wasn't even done until around 33AD.

Not if they were part of Jesus ministry it isnt.

If James died in 62 AD and the Essene movement did not peter out until around 80AD according to your source, this allows for 30 years for James the Just to write about his beliefs. Once again, nothing like this has ever been found. However, the Gospel of James was found which has good evidence supporting his authorship.

It does? Well Ill be

"The author claims to be James, the stepbrother of Jesus. The author cannot have actually been James because the author seems to be dependent upon Matthew and Luke. Only Matthew tells us about the massacre of the infants arranged by Herod, while only Luke tells us about the birth of John to Elizabeth. Concerning the question of how John escaped Herod's wrath, Hock argues that the author "answered this question by having Zechariah choose death rather than tell of John's whereabouts and by having Elizabeth flee to the hills with John." Since James' death at the hands of Ananias occured in 62 CE and since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed later, the Infancy Gospel of James must be pseudonymous." ECW

This Gospel is nothing like the Essenes beliefs. But it does reflect the Christians beliefs.

No kidding?

So basically your source is a theory

Blah, blah, blah

[Cathar1950]

Peter, Barnabas, and the others from James withdrew from Paul.
All we have is Paul's side of the story but there is a falling out and he was called to Jerusalem to fix it. Paul does admit he won his converts by deceit. So he could have been telling his people anything.
Then he claimed to be a Roman where he was under protection.
Comparing Acts to Paul it seems Acts glossed over the story. It even has Peter acting like a non Jew and saying everything is clean. I doubt Paul stood up to Peter and he just said that after he was dumped.

[achilles12604]

Ok lets look from a different angle.

I have been defending why I thought that Paul and James and Peter all preached the points I made before.

Now its your turn. Please show us some evidence that James and Peter did not preach the following things. . .

1) Jesus was the Christ, God's messiah

2) That Jesus died and thus our sins were forgiven

3) That Jesus rose from the dead

4) That faith in Jesus and following him was the way to salvation

5) Worship of Jesus was acceptable.

Since this is the crux of our debate at this point, please demonstrate these factors.


PS - I find it very amusing that if I try and use Luke and Acts as evidence it is invalid. But if you use it as your only source (at least the only one you have mentioned) it is just hunky dory. True scholarship at work there.

[Cathar1950]

1) Jesus was the Christ, God's messiah

We don't know wha they meant by messiah. He does not seem to fit the figure hoped for as he didn't install god's kingdom.
But he could have met many of the various Messiah ideas.

2) That Jesus died and thus our sins were forgiven

Questionable and a later Pauline gospel to gentiles. Many dies for their sins.

3) That Jesus rose from the dead

Was a body or a spirit that was raised. Did he go to heaven right away or 40 days latter. Was he a vision or did he have holes in his spiritual body? Take your pick I guess.

4) That faith in Jesus and following him was the way to salvation

Questionable. I think it was YHWH first and his Law.

5) Worship of Jesus was acceptable.

Questionable and I doubt Jesus wanted any worship but YHWH alone.
There are a variety of Christian beliefs.

PS - I find it very amusing that if I try and use Luke and Acts as evidence it is invalid. But if you use it as your only source (at least the only one you have mentioned) it is just hunky dory. True scholarship at work there.

It how you use Luck-Acts that I question. You seem to think it is all facts and proof. Tomorrow I will give you some other ideas concerning Acts. I just maintain that it is a questionable source.
I see you are apology at its best.