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]

Your being pretty sure hardly seems like contrary evidence.

Oh, all right...

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1Thessalonians 1:1

For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 1Thessalonians 1:9-10

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phillipians 2:9-11

Need more?

In this example the possessive could somehow justify the uses of the small l "lord" translation, but it remains ambiguous.

"Somehow"? Paul is consistent in his use of kurios as a title for Jesus.

So clearly this is just your position and has nothing to do on whether or not the evidence shows whether Paul refers to the tetragrammaton.

No, this is my position based on the evidence of Paul's letters. Your position that Paul is referring to the tetragrammation is an inference that Paul follows the Septuagint usage, and ignores Paul's own consistent usage of theos and pater as designations for YHWH.

If the ambiguity remains then we need to address the simple point that Kurios is overwhelmingly used (90+%) in reference to the tetragrammaton or a formal name for god.

Used where, the Septuagint or the epistles? You're begging the question.

So if we really are going to claim that these multiple uses of Lord Jesus from Paul (i count 50+,15 of which have a possessive) are all ambiguous, then should not the overwhelming colloquial usage of Kurios in the septuigant be taken into account?

What's ambiguous? As I said, Paul is consistent. He uses theos and pater for YHWH and he uses kurios, huios, and Christos for Jesus. Please cite even one example where he gets the two mixed up and then I'll admit that there is ambiguity. Paul's letters are consistent within themselves. The 'Septuagint' argument is a red herring.

Unless you can show that this was definitely a secular word, you could never make the statement, "Paul describes Jesus as God's errand boy or herald, not as God himself" with any definite assurance.

Look at the Phillipians quote above. God "exalted" Jesus and gave him a "name". IOW Jesus is a made guy. (Lots of Sopranos reruns lately. )

So your logic is then, even though Kurious is used 90% of the time in reference to the name of god in both the OT and references to OT passages in the NT, Paul uses kurios in a secular connotation 100% of the time based on my gut feeling. Not a very convincing argument.

No my argument is that Paul uses the title kurios consistently when referring to Jesus in what could hardly be termed a "secular connotation" and that he uses an entirely different term (theos) consistently when referring to YHWH. Usage of kurios in the Septuagint, or anywhere else outside of Paul's epistles is beside the point.

[youngborean]

He uses theos and pater for YHWH and he uses kurios, huios, and Christos for Jesus. Please cite even one example where he gets the two mixed up and then I'll admit that there is ambiguity. Paul's letters are consistent within themselves.

Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Clearly a hebraism that uses Kurios as the greek translation of YHWH. There are others.

Where does paul use Theos or Pater for YHWH? I couldn't find any. In fact I don't think there is a part of the New Testament where theos is used for YHWH. Theos is used for G-d which is the hebrew elohim and not YHWH. They are different hebrew words and Paul, like most people who knew herbrew would have known that.

No my argument is that Paul uses the title kurios consistently when referring to Jesus in what could hardly be termed a "secular connotation" and that he uses an entirely different term (theos) consistently when referring to YHWH. Usage of kurios in the Septuagint, or anywhere else outside of Paul's epistles is beside the point.

Never heard this argument for establishing the meaning of a word in scripture. In fact, all contemporary works including the source texts for quotations should be considered according to any legitimate scholar. Throwing out relavant literature in the same language is just irresponsible scholarship. The passage I cited above is a well known hebrew construction thoughout the OT.

כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה

Coh amar YHWH - THus saith the Lord, clearly uses the tetragrammaton. Beyond that every instance of quoting the tetragrammaton in other contemporary NT scriptures uses Kurios. Your statement that Paul uses Theos or pater for YHWH has yet to be established with a verifiable example and therefore is the real red herring, unless you have a passage by Paul that can be traced back to an OT usage of YHWH.

[achilles12604]

Lotan:

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

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

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

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

achilles12604:

The theory: The earliest Christians, Paul, James, and the apostles at the least, perhaps more unnamed men, made up Christianity or borrowed ideas from other religions to make up their own. Then they pushed it as truth onto the unknowing masses and gathered a following.

1) If this theory fits better than the theory that it is more or less true and accurate.
2) WHY one theory is better than the other.
3) What other theories could be possible?
4) Why those theories should be considered.

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

Question 1) the theory seems to lack substance. It looks like a straw man created by a theory you do not specify. You just say some thing like this is my fake theory so why does my unspecified theory that I believe is true and accurate not better then yours?
You are saying; why is the truth not better then this lame theory I made up or got from some dummy?

This I love, especially since I already pulled up 4 quotes from atheists on this very forum using this theory.

As I showed Lotan, this was a theory GIVEN to me by ATHEISTS. I love when you show how stupid it is. I happen to agree.


As for the mormons, I find it interesting that most of their original writings, are in fact locked away and no one is allowed to see them. I also find it interesting that the plates just went missing. I also find it interesting that there is not even a trace of the Hewbrew culture here to support their claims.

As I pointed out, their religion was spread, not on the the basis of historical accuracy, but rather on the ideals of family binding and loving friendship. This fact becomes even more interesting, when you realize that if a Mormon leaves the church, they are excommunicated from the family they originally joined to support. This sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.

I have an idea, if you wish to compare Mormonsim with Christianity, lets do so. I will create the thread or better yet we could go head to head over this issue. Let me know.

[Cathar1950]

achilles12604

This I love, especially since I already pulled up 4 quotes from atheists on this very forum using this theory.

I dont recall the quotes but I think you are misrepresenting them. But that is normal I believe Christians some times say stupid things that are often misunderstood. I would have to see the quotes but you put together a half backed theory that you find easy to beat up.

achilles12604

As I showed Lotan, this was a theory GIVEN to me by ATHEISTS. I love when you show how stupid it is. I happen to agree.

Theists have not cornered the market on stupid.

achilles12604

As for the mormons, I find it interesting that most of their original writings, are in fact locked away and no one is allowed to see them. I also find it interesting that the plates just went missing. I also find it interesting that there is not even a trace of the Hewbrew culture here to support their claims.

I find it interesting that the Christians have such poor records before 70 CE and then it gets worse.


achilles12604

As I pointed out, their religion was spread, not on the the basis of historical accuracy, but rather on the ideals of family binding and loving friendship. This fact becomes even more interesting, when you realize that if a Mormon leaves the church, they are excommunicated from the family they originally joined to support. This sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.

Stark has shown that the same was true of Christianity. Truth is not needed to spread an idea or start a movement. Look at the heaven gates people. A few died wit change in their pocket waiting for a space ship hiding behind a comet. The spread of Christianity can be attributed to family and friendship circles and the NT is many times supported excommunication and expulsion from the community. Yet you seem fine with them and their contradictions. Christianity did not spread because of historical accuracy.

achilles12604

I have an idea, if you wish to compare Mormonsim with Christianity, lets do so. I will create the thread or better yet we could go head to head over this issue. Let me know.

I think we can stick to Christianity and mention Mormons and Heaven Gate members and their behaviour and ideas when appropriate. If you want to go head to head with someone over Mormonism then find a Mormon, I see no reason not to compare and less reason to take sides.
Maybe you can excommunicate each other.

[Easyrider]

I find it interesting that the Christians have such poor records before 70 CE and then it gets worse.

Tsk, tsk...

On Lukes narrative (Book of Acts) - His book ends with the main leaders still alive, which means it was written no later than 62. (Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer gives thirteen additional reasons why Acts was written by 62.) {3}.

If Acts was written by 62, then the Gospel of Luke was written before that. How do we know? Because Luke reminds the original recipient of Acts, Theophilus (who was probably an important Roman official), that he had written to him earlier. The first verse of Acts says, "in my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began t do and to teach.." The former book" must be the Gospel of Luke, because Luke addresses that to Theophilus as well (Luke 1:1-4, see citation below).

How much earlier is Luke? It would seem reasonable to place Luke at or before A.D. 60. Why? Because 62 is the latest Acts was written, and there had to be some time between Lukes first writing to Theophilus and his second. If Acts is no later than 62 (and quite possibly earlier), then Luke is realistically 60 or before.

This date also makes sense in light of Pauls quotation of Lukes gospel. Writing sometime between A.D. 62-65. Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 and calls it scripture (1Tim 5:18). Therefore, Lukes gospel must have been in circulation long enough before that time in order for both Paul and Timothy to know its contents & regard it as scripture. (By the way, this was no minor claim for Paul to make. In effect, he was making the bold assertion that Lukes gospel was just as inspired as the Holy Jewish Bible. The Old Testament he treasured so much!)

If Luke was written by A.D. 60, then Mark must have been written in the mid-to-late 50s if not earlier. Why question because Luke says that he got his facts by checking with eyewitness sources: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems also good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught. (Luke 1-4)

Most scholars believe Marks gospel (of Peter's accounts) was one of those eye witness sources. But even if Mark isnt before Luke, the very fact that we know beyond reasonable doubt that Luke is before 62 and probably before 60 means that we have meticulously recorded eye witness testimony written between 25 or 30 years of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. This is far too early to be legendary. It also means that the eyewitness sources go back even earlier. How much earlier?

Some New Testament Books Were Penned In The 40s And 50s A.D., With Sources From The 30s (Only The A Few Years After The Death Of Jesus)
As certain as we are about the date of Lukes records, there is no doubt from anyone, including the most liberal of scholars, that Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth (which is in modern day Greece) sometime between 55 and 56. In this letter, Paul speaks about moral problems in the church, and then proceeds to discuss controversies about tongues, prophecies, and the Lord Supper. This, of course, demonstrates that the church in Corinth was experiencing some kind of miraculous activity and was already observing the Lords Supper with in 25 years of the Resurrection.

But the most significant aspect of this letter is that it contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection itself. In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes down testimony he received from others and the testimony that was authenticated when Christ appeared to him: For I delivered to you what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then the twelve. After that He appeared to more that five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remand until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all of the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB).

Where did Paul get what he received? He probably received from Peter and James when he visited them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). Why is this important? Because, as Gary Habermas points out, most scholars (even liberals) believe that this testimony was part of an early creed that dates right back to the Resurrection itself, eighteen months to eight years after, but some say even earlier. {4} There is no possible way that such testimony could describe a legend, because it goes right back to the time and place of the event itself. {5} If there was ever a place that a legendary Resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem, because the Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash Christianity and could have easily done so by parading Jesus body around the city.

More over, notice that Paul cites fourteen eyewitnesses whose names are known: the twelve apostles, James, and Peter himself ("Cephas" is the Aramaic for Peter), and then references an appearance to more than 500 others at one time. Included in those groups was one skeptic, James, and one outright enemy, Paul himself. By naming so many people who could verify what Paul was saying, he was, in effect, challenging his Corinthian readers to check him out. Bible scholar William Lillie puts it this way:
What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says, in effect: "If you dont believe me, you can ask them." Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. {6}
If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would have immediately lost all credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.

In addition to 1 Corinthians, there are numerous other New Testament documents that were written in the 50s or earlier. Galatians (A.D. 48), 1 Thessalonians (50-54), and Romans (57-58) are all in this category. In fact (and we know we may be going out on a limb here!) all of Pauls works had to have been written before he died, which was sometime in the mid-60s.

But its not just conservative scholars who believe these early dates. Even some radical critics, such as atheist John A. T. Robinson, admit the New Testament documents were written early. Known for his role in launching the "Death of God" movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited that most New Testament books, including all four Gospels, were written sometime between A.D. 40 and 65.

The great and once-liberal archaeologist William F. Albright, after seeing how well the New Testament fit with the archaeological and historical data, wrote, "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80." {7} Elsewhere Albright said, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and the 80s of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)." {8}

So we know beyond a reasonable doubt that most if not all the New Testament documents are early.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/dating_the_nt.html

[achilles12604]

achilles12604

This I love, especially since I already pulled up 4 quotes from atheists on this very forum using this theory.

I dont recall the quotes but I think you are misrepresenting them. But that is normal I believe Christians some times say stupid things that are often misunderstood. I would have to see the quotes but you put together a half backed theory that you find easy to beat up.

Look for yourself. I pulled them, without editing from the thread "Historical validity of Jesus" and I even referenced the writer, and the page.

achilles12604

As I showed Lotan, this was a theory GIVEN to me by ATHEISTS. I love when you show how stupid it is. I happen to agree.

Theists have not cornered the market on stupid.

Interesting wording. . .

achilles12604

As for the mormons, I find it interesting that most of their original writings, are in fact locked away and no one is allowed to see them. I also find it interesting that the plates just went missing. I also find it interesting that there is not even a trace of the Hewbrew culture here to support their claims.

I find it interesting that the Christians have such poor records before 70 CE and then it gets worse.

I also find it interesting that many historical figures have much worse records that Christians, yet this theory of exclusion and doubt is only applied to Christians.

Stark has shown that the same was true of Christianity. Truth is not needed to spread an idea or start a movement. Look at the heaven gates people. A few died wit change in their pocket waiting for a space ship hiding behind a comet. The spread of Christianity can be attributed to family and friendship circles and the NT is many times supported excommunication and expulsion from the community. Yet you seem fine with them and their contradictions. Christianity did not spread because of historical accuracy.

You really love Stark. I grant the possibility of the spread of ANYTHING, true or not. Where I disagree, and I have since the beginning and as of yet I still have not gotten a straight answer, is the first Christians.

The first Christians were in the position to know truth from lies. The fact the Christianity claims such outrageous things (miracles, rising dead people, etc) only strengthens this arguement.

Mormons for example did not need to believe in many outrageous things. Joseph Smith never claimed to have any miraculous powers. He never had to demonstrate those powers to be believed. Interestingly the one place where he was asked to "Prove" his claims, ie when he was asked to reveal the plates, he failed and told those asking that they were not allowed to see the plates. Only he was. This is why he had to read them out of a hat for crying out loud.

Christians on the other hand had a lot to prove. If Jesus never did anything miraculous, then how did he attract a following of people,

1) after he died
2) from the very people who would have known (key word) if the claims were accurate
3) within such a very short time

Point two is the sticky one. Those Jews from Jerusalem which formed the headquarters and launching point for the entire Gentile world, KNEW if they had seen Jesus do amazing things or not. If the answer was not, then why did they put aside their own beliefs for Christianity?

This point, is not addressed by Stark nor has it been addressed by anyone here except Lotan, and Lotan's reasoning was

Except that you don't really know what the "very first converts" believed, because there is so little record of them. In fact, it is probably inaccurate to call the "converts" at this point. What eventually became Christianity could be described at this time to be a mere difference in opinion about Judahism.

He gives an excuse that there were no record of converts. If there were no converts, then the religion would be dead!! Why is this very simple logic so hard to grasp. No converts = dead cause. His second sentence is also illogical in reference to the times. Judiahism and Christianity were total opposits when it came to Jesus. The idea of Jesus was blasphemy to the Jews. So his trying to say that Jews and Christians had a little difference of opinion, is like saying that Isreal and Palistine have a little difference of opinion. Or that Satanists and Christians have a difference of opinion.

[Lotan]

Clearly a hebraism that uses Kurios as the greek translation of YHWH. There are others.

Are these others quotes as well? As Paul says "it is written", but where? Could it be this...?

According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. ISAIAH 59:18

In the next verse the Septuagint uses the word kurios for YHWH, so if Paul was citing scripture then that would explain his usage.

Where does paul use Theos or Pater for YHWH? I couldn't find any. In fact I don't think there is a part of the New Testament where theos is used for YHWH. Theos is used for G-d which is the hebrew elohim and not YHWH.

The name YHWH doesn't make an appearance anywhere in the NT. I suppose it was no longer fashionable by then. When I said that Paul uses Theos or Pater for YHWH, I was referring to God the Father, you know, the guy who said ""Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased". Are you saying that 'God' (or 'Theos', or 'Elohim'), and 'YHWH' aren't the same guy? If so, then your last statement would be true enough, technically.

They are different hebrew words and Paul, like most people who knew herbrew would have known that.

Well you can't blame him for being a little confused since the Septuagint uses theos both for 'elohim' (Gen.1:1) and for 'YHWH' (Gen. 2:2)! Paul might have known Hebrew, but he wrote (and read) in Greek.

Never heard this argument for establishing the meaning of a word in scripture. In fact, all contemporary works including the source texts for quotations should be considered according to any legitimate scholar. Throwing out relavant literature in the same language is just irresponsible scholarship. The passage I cited above is a well known hebrew construction thoughout the OT.

I didn't mean to suggest that anything should be thrown out. What I'm trying to say is that Paul uses the formula theos+pater as distinct from the formula kurios+huios+Christos. The consistency of his usage is stronger evidence than the assumption that his usage must be the same as that of others.

Your statement that Paul uses Theos or pater for YHWH has yet to be established with a verifiable example and therefore is the real red herring, unless you have a passage by Paul that can be traced back to an OT usage of YHWH.

My intention is that YHWH = God the Father. I often use the tetragrammation to make a distinction between him and JC. Unless you think that YHWH and God the Father are not one and the same your objection fall flat.

Paul clearly thought of Jesus as his 'Lord' or 'Master' distinct from the 'Father'. Since you started your post by quoting Romans I will return the favor...

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:1-7

[Lotan]

As I showed Lotan, this was a theory GIVEN to me by ATHEISTS. I love when you show how stupid it is. I happen to agree.

Sure it's stupid, but that hasn't stopped apologists like C.S. Lewis or Josh McDowell, or even Easyrider from using it as a strawman.

This point, is not addressed by Stark nor has it been addressed by anyone here except Lotan, and Lotan's reasoning was

Except that you don't really know what the "very first converts" believed, because there is so little record of them. In fact, it is probably inaccurate to call the "converts" at this point. What eventually became Christianity could be described at this time to be a mere difference in opinion about Judahism.

He gives an excuse that there were no record of converts. If there were no converts, then the religion would be dead!! Why is this very simple logic so hard to grasp. No converts = dead cause. His second sentence is also illogical in reference to the times. Judiahism and Christianity were total opposits when it came to Jesus. The idea of Jesus was blasphemy to the Jews. So his trying to say that Jews and Christians had a little difference of opinion, is like saying that Isreal and Palistine have a little difference of opinion. Or that Satanists and Christians have a difference of opinion.

Wow! Have you got it messed up!

Let's see...

He gives an excuse that there were no record of converts.

No I don't. What I said was that the beliefs of the earliest proto-Christians were within the bounds of Judahism, even if they weren't shared by all Judahists.

No converts = dead cause.

I never said that there were no 'converts', only that 'converts' was an inaccurate term for Jesus' earliest followers.

His second sentence is also illogical in reference to the times. Judiahism and Christianity were total opposits when it came to Jesus.

You seem to forget that "in reference to the times" there was no such thing as 'Christianity'. Some people may have thought that Jesus was the messiah but that's hardly anti-Judahist!

The idea of Jesus was blasphemy to the Jews.

Which "idea of Jesus"? Yours, or those held by his original followers?

So his trying to say that Jews and Christians had a little difference of opinion, is like saying that Isreal and Palistine have a little difference of opinion. Or that Satanists and Christians have a difference of opinion.

What Christians? "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts 11:26. Even then, the Christians were still a form of Judahists. The big split happened at the time of, and largely because of, the destruction of the temple.

[achilles12604]

As I showed Lotan, this was a theory GIVEN to me by ATHEISTS. I love when you show how stupid it is. I happen to agree.

Sure it's stupid, but that hasn't stopped apologists like C.S. Lewis or Josh McDowell, or even Easyrider from using it as a strawman.

[/quote]

It isn't a straw man to refute this theory and show that atheists are the ones purporting it. Please refer to my list of atheist uses.

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

He gives an excuse that there were no record of converts.

No I don't. What I said was that the beliefs of the earliest proto-Christians were within the bounds of Judahism, even if they weren't shared by all Judahists.

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

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

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

No converts = dead cause.

I never said that there were no 'converts', only that 'converts' was an inaccurate term for Jesus' earliest followers.

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

Which "idea of Jesus"? Yours, or those held by his original followers?

Ah here is the crux of the matter.

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

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

Please bear in mind that
1) arguements based on simple doubt are lame.
2) The Christians of 15 years later and the same people of 15 years before (it is unlikely they would have all died in that short time)
3) Paul's letters include beliefs which preceeded even his letters
4) the apostles were out preaching their Gospels LONG before they wrote them down

So his trying to say that Jews and Christians had a little difference of opinion, is like saying that Isreal and Palistine have a little difference of opinion. Or that Satanists and Christians have a difference of opinion.

What Christians? "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts 11:26. Even then, the Christians were still a form of Judahists. The big split happened at the time of, and largely because of, the destruction of the temple.

[/quote]

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

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

[youngborean]

Clearly a hebraism that uses Kurios as the greek translation of YHWH. There are others.
Are these others quotes as well? As Paul says "it is written", but where? Could it be this...?

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

Well you can't blame him for being a little confused since the Septuagint uses theos both for 'elohim' (Gen.1:1) and for 'YHWH' (Gen. 2:2)! Paul might have known Hebrew, but he wrote (and read) in Greek.

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

What I'm trying to say is that Paul uses the formula theos+pater as distinct from the formula kurios+huios+Christos. The consistency of his usage is stronger evidence than the assumption that his usage must be the same as that of others.

Evidence of what? These 2 constructions can easily mean Elohim pater and YHWH Jesus Christ. There is nothing you have shown from Paul's Greek that clearly associates theos with the tetragrammaton. Elohim and YHWH are 2 different words that mean the same thing. There is no reason why kurios and theos can not be the same situation. Clearly you haven't provided any textual evidence to show that people translated YHWH to Theos. It seems more likely that Paul, if he knew (and read) greek as you said, would be falling the general rule that seems to exist throughout NT Greek at that time. That when there is a distinction between Elohim and YHWH needs to be made, you use theos for elohim and kurios for YHWH. Just like Jesus uses when he quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 in Matthew 4:7.

Matt 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Deu 6:16 in herbew:
לֹא תְנַסּוּ, אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם

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

Paul clearly thought of Jesus as his 'Lord' or 'Master' distinct from the 'Father'. Since you started your post by quoting Romans I will return the favor...

Paul just reiterates the story that Jesus began. Distinct and equally God to be worshipped. There is nothing to denote secular Lordness when Paul talks about Jesus. He mentions him in heaven and deserving prayer and worship. Hardly sounds like a secular lord or master.

My intention is that YHWH = God the Father. I often use the tetragrammation to make a distinction between him and JC. Unless you think that YHWH and God the Father are not one and the same your objection fall flat.

I know that is your intention. But your intention does not automatically mean that the grammatical evidence supports you. You can't just say this phrase is the greek equivalent of that hebrew word with no definite connection to the hebrew just because it is what you often do. It is ambiguous whether or not Kurios is ever secular in Paul's writing. There been no evidence which you cited where Paul definitely uses Kurios with a secular connotation. In every case it is ambiguous. However, I already cited one unambiguous passage where it is definitely in reference to the Tetragrammaton. Therefore we are left to believe in the abscence of any etymological evidence that Paul was just doing what his other greek speaking contemporaries were doing, using Theos for elohim and Kurios for YHWH.