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.

[Thought Criminal]

Christians were killed in the first few centuries after Christ simply for preaching the Gospel and refusing to bow to the emperor. You can't deny that and it's amazing the Gospel survived it.

Killing people just breeds martyrs. As for why it survived, consider that it became the state religion and was forced on people.

What more proof do you need?

More than what? You've offered no proof at all.

But I suppose the obvious retort is that the Bible is made up and contains no truth.

It's a bunch of stories. Why should I think they're true?

TC

[Goat]

Please demonstrate that the members of heaven's gates were liars. Show that they did not believe in what they did.

Belief in something does not make it true. For example, God exists whether or not He gives me a mind of grace to believe.

Quite correct. Belief in something does not make it true. However, if you die for a mistaken belief, you are not a liar.

Now, apply the claims for heaven's gate to the apostles.

[bernee51]

Their message faded because, well, they killed themselves. Christians instead killed others and forced them to convert, which is why their religion is still around. Longevity in religions is evidence of memetic fitness, not truth.

Christians were killed in the first few centuries after Christ simply for preaching the Gospel and refusing to bow to the emperor. You can't deny that and it's amazing the Gospel survived it.

Oh, and for the record, you don't just get to claim God exists and expect us to take you seriously. If you make such a claim, you need to prove it, but you can't.

TC

What more proof do you need?

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." --John 20:24-29

I love this passage because Thomas is me: I would've said the exact same thing. So when Jesus appears to Thomas to prove to him, he's proving to me, and I accept this testimony.

But I suppose the obvious retort is that the Bible is made up and contains no truth even though there's no evidence to support that claim.

In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna shows Arjuna his true nature as an incarnation of Vishnu. Should that be believed and taken as fact? If not, why should I believe what 'John' supposedly wrote.

[OnceConvinced]

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." --John 20:24-29

I love this passage because Thomas is me: I would've said the exact same thing.

Really? After spending all that time in the flesh with Jesus witnessing all his incredible miracles, things that defy explanation and you would not believe that he could raise from the dead?? I find that hard to believe.

The fact that Thomas did doubt him after having a personal relationship with him, strongly suggests that Jesus was not as wonderful as what the bible claims.

[The Nice Centurion]

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.

Mormons rightly say they are christians. Allegedly even the original brand. Restored by Joseph Smith.

[boatsnguitars]

There are several problems with your approach.

For one, religions cannot be theories because theories are explanation of evidence and there is no evidence to support the core teachings of any religion.

But the main problem is that your argument can be advanced in support of any religion, and even many cults. Since only one religion could be true, such an argument is flawed because it doesn't distinguish between truth and falsity.

For example, it means nothing that followers of a religion really really believe it to be true. The members of Heaven's Gate were so convinced that a spaceship was behind the comet Hale Bopp that they killed themselves while wearing jumpsuits and carrying a five-dollar-bill. That is sufficient to show that zeal for a religion is no argument in support of it's truth.

And indeed one should be skeptical of any belief that seems favorable or comforting. My mother has just gone into the hospital, and I am fairly upset. I want nothing more right now than to believe in a heaven where mothers live forever. But the fact that someone wants it to be true, or even needs it to be true, does not make it likely to be true.

Finally, your argument is weakened by the fact that we can see new religions (cults) cropping up from time to time, and sometimes attracting large followings. The groups must have gone through the processes that your argument implies must be impossible unless true. Consider Scientology and Mormonism. They went through a period of ridicule, and oppression (in the case of the Mormons). Do you consider them true? Or even likely to be true?

DanZ

Unless achilles12604 has new info, I don't see any reason to entertain the premises put forward. Christianity is, by all measure, yet another religion. That is all.

[TRANSPONDER]

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." --John 20:24-29

I love this passage because Thomas is me: I would've said the exact same thing.

Really? After spending all that time in the flesh with Jesus witnessing all his incredible miracles, things that defy explanation and you would not believe that he could raise from the dead?? I find that hard to believe.

The fact that Thomas did doubt him after having a personal relationship with him, strongly suggests that Jesus was not as wonderful as what the bible claims.

Just sayin', the fact that Luke says the 11 (minus Judas) were there on resurrection night, suggests that John's tale of Thomas is just made up to make a polemic - In fact, he says so, as you pointed out.