Early Christian Conspiracy - How Was It Done?

reply to post by jagdflieger


Have you ever researched the beliefs of people BEFORE Christianity? Christianity was not the first, is not the only, and will not be the last, belief and faith structure.

Humans before Christians were not belief-less, God-less people, or non-spiritual.

The early Christians did get their stories from elsewhere, but made them more relevant and understandable for their peoples.

Ask yourself, why is Sunday named Sunday? Why does Easter fall on a different date every year and what does it truly signify? And yet Christmas is Dec 25th every year???

Research these and then come back here and tell me you have no clue as to where the early Christians got their beliefs from.

reply to post by worlds_away

Research these and then come back here and tell me you have no clue as to where the early Christians got their beliefs from.

My contention is that their beliefs came from the Torah (Old Testament) and a historical Jesus.

As to you other questions. Answer me this:

Why is the Battle of Kurukshetra significant?

[edit on 2-5-2010 by jagdflieger]

reply to post by jagdflieger


As to my other questions, you didn't answer them. I obviously cannot make you answer them or look deeper into the mysteries of Christ, not the historical Christ, but the spiritual Christ, but you cannot say that I didn't try my damn hardest.

Again, maybe have a read of "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. If the title doesn't scare you away.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by worlds_away]

reply to post by worlds_away

Have you ever researched the beliefs of people BEFORE Christianity? Christianity was not the first, is not the only, and will not be the last, belief and faith structure.

I answered your question by posing the question?
Why is the Battle of Kurukshetra significant?

You see I know the significance of that battle. Indeed I have research beliefs before Christianity.

reply to post by jagdflieger


"You see I know the significance of that battle. Indeed I have research beliefs before Christianity." -jagdflieger

Well then please, as I have stated about 3 times before, enlighten me as to what you know.

reply to post by worlds_away


Prior to the Battle (or War) of Kurukshetra (3143BCE), Lord Krishna recited the Bhagavad Gita to Ajurna.

reply to post by jagdflieger


Ok, but what does this mean to you? What significance does this battle hold for you? I am not saying there is no significance, but how do you interpret this? And how does this answer the questions that I posed for you?

reply to post by worlds_away


You asked a series of questions. Among which was have I researched other beliefs which existed before Christianity. All seem to be rhetorical and off the topic. My answer was yes (in the form of a question). You see I have seen over 50 web sites which shows the "similarities" between Krishna, Buddha, etc. and Jesus. They all present theses statements as if the posters have researched their statements. Reading source material (the Mahābhārata) reveals that they did not preform such research, they only copied their conclusions from some other web site. Ask them the question "Why is the War of Kurukshetra is important" and you draw a blank stare. Yet it is one of the most important periods in the reported life of Krishna. For prior to the battle, Krishna is said to have recited the Bhagavad Gita which is probably one of the most important Hindu texts around for it summarizes Hindu beliefs in one single document. Understand the Gita, you have a basic grasp of Hindu beliefs.

No I have not read "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur, but next time in the library I check it out.

reply to post by jagdflieger


My questions were certainly not rhetorical and not seemingly off topic in light of the first questions you asked. Some people do not know why Easter falls on a different day every year.

1. Where was the "Christian conspiracy" started.
2. When was the "Christian conspiracy" initiated and who were the imitators (note the dates can be approximations).
3. How was it spread throughout the Roman Empire and by whom.
4. Some statements on how it evolved; i. e., the evolution of savior god belief systems (Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) into a flesh and blood man as presented in the Gospel of Mark.

These are the questions that you asked and said you have a scenario for, unless I misunderstood you earlier. It seems as if you already "know" the answers to these questions and are trying to find out if anyone else shares your thoughts.

But until you let us know what you think are the answers to these questions, I can really go no further.

The accepted historical facts really don’t make any sense without Jesus. Do you realize that the purpose of the BC / AD dating system was to make the birth of Jesus Christ the dividing point of world history? Why would that be the case, apart from a real man making a huge impact? The early Christian church started in Jerusalem amongst the Jews. If you go to Israel you will discover that the Sabbath is still taken very seriously today. The elevators stop on every floor because pushing the button is considered work. How can you explain the fact that so many pious Jews abandoned the Saturday Sabbath for Sunday worship apart from a belief that Jesus rose on Sunday? How could you possibly account for the rapid rise of the Christian church amongst ferocious Roman and Jewish persecution apart from the fact that a really important man named Jesus of Nazareth actually lived? And how do you explain all the willing martyrs? Why would anyone die or withstand torture for a myth? Considering his impact on history, at the bare minimum don’t you think there must have been a real man named Jesus of Nazareth?

This thread has been very enlightening and I appreciate the OP's posting it.

Regardless of how frustrating the proselytizing on both sides of the argument often becomes, it is very clear that there are some people on ATS who are extremely knowledgeable and very intelligent.

I read the thread pretty quickly, so correct me if I missed it, but I haven't seen a single answer to the questions posted in the OP. That's certainly not conclusive proof of anything, but it's pretty interesting.

What I have seen is the usual thread drift on part of both the Christian and non-Christian participants.

Why hasn't anyone provided a reasonable, step by step hypothesis of how and when this conspiracy was created?

Eric

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Do you realize that the purpose of the BC / AD dating system was to make the birth of Jesus Christ the dividing point of world history?

What do you think of the other calendar systems in other countries and religions? Jewish calendar? Chinese calendar? And other calendars?

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I don't have an opinion on calendars. The point is the absurdity of those who would argue that Jesus is a mythological creation. It's an incoherent hypothesis with well accepted history.

For instance, critical scholars widely agree that Paul’s letters were written very close to the time that Jesus lived. Let’s talk about 1 Corinthians which is dated at A.D. 55/56. In that letter Paul uses a preexistent creed that claims over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Scholars can tell its a creed based on parallelisms in the original language, it was constructed as memorization tool by the early disciples. Most date it with in 2-5 years of Jesus crucifixion. Dr Gary Habermas maintains that “Critics not only admit this data, but were the first ones to recognize the early date.” So even highly critical liberal scholars recognize this early creed.

reply to post by EricD

I read the thread pretty quickly, so correct me if I missed it, but I haven't seen a single answer to the questions posted in the OP. That's certainly not conclusive proof of anything, but it's pretty interesting.

Well I was working on a response as to my view point, but got distracted. However other than some ranting and raving from some skeptics over semantics, there has been no direct response to the original questions. Also there was some vague comments to the form "Well we answered your questions". It is back to the double standard, Christians are not allowed to question their statements; but they can say whatever they want about Christians. Still central to the debate is the question:

If there was no historical Jesus, then from what sources did Paul create a mythical Jesus. If there were no prior basis of mythology then Paul created a mythical Jesus from a theological vacuum. His ideas had to come from somewhere. If there was a historical Jesus, then Paul makes sense.

reply to post by jagdflieger


Even better WHY would Paul do it? He was a Roman citizen and a Pharisee, the group of pious Jews that Jesus had the harshest words for. He was trained by Gamaliel and being groomed for the Sanhedrin. He has everything to lose, why on earth would he become a Christian?

Paul was hunting down the Christians and killing them.

In the book of Acts he was present when his associates stoned to death the Christian Stephen who had been preaching the Gospel. Then within few years this same man is preaching the same Gospel and claiming he saw the risen Christ. Here’s a portion about Paul’s conversation with Jesus,

And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’ And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ (Ac 22:19-21, ESV)

Apart from really encountering the resurrected Jesus, I just cannot account for his rapid and total conversion. Consider that his firm belief probably led him to be more honest and more careful about the details. And history has it that he was eventually martyred himself for his belief.

I have never seen any skeptic explain away these facts.


[edit on 5/2/2010 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by jagdflieger


Actually, there has been. You have chosen to ignore it. You have come here asking questions, yet you did not come here with an open mind.

An open mind would be able to see the Bible as a spiritual text as it was meant and not historical or literal.

Let us say that I concede a man names Jesus lived during that time. I really cannot disagree because there were men named Jesus alive at that time.

What I cannot accept is that you cannot see how the spiritual stories in the Bible have been taken from various older sources that spoke of the divine in us all, and the writers of the bible (whoever they are and for whatever reasons, I cannot ask them and neither can you) placed that divine in Jesus only. They took the power away from the people to realize their greatness and turned the celebration of life/death and nature into a celebration of suffering and death.

To accept that there was a man names Jesus who died, came back to life as a flesh and blood man, and also performed many many "miracles" in his time on this earth as literal fact is unfathomable and unreasonable.


And I am still waiting for your view point on the questions you asked. I believe it will shed much light on why you asked the questions you did.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

The point is the absurdity of those who would argue that Jesus is a mythological creation. It's an incoherent hypothesis with well accepted history.

Right.

Just because we have the "BC/AD" calendar system, doesn't mean that Jesus existed back then. If you accept that, then I can give you plenty of calendar systems which will convince you that other "gods" existed.

For instance, critical scholars widely agree that Paul’s letters were written very close to the time that Jesus lived. Let’s talk about 1 Corinthians which is dated at A.D. 55/56. In that letter Paul uses a preexistent creed that claims over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

Plenty of threads on this. We can debate this in a new thread. The fact is that there is no contemporary writings about Jesus. All the writings are after 100 A.D., a little bit earlier maybe. There are no eyewitnesses unless we have discovered contemporary writings.

500 eyewitnesses you say? Verses? Don't give me the writings AFTER THE FACT. Give me just one contemporary writing.

Dr Gary Habermas maintains that “Critics not only admit this data, but were the first ones to recognize the early date.” So even highly critical liberal scholars recognize this early creed.

He was my professor at Liberty University. He has lost many debates.

Those professors at Liberty University are not all what they are all cracked up to be.

reply to post by jagdflieger


I have a question for you.

In this thread, are you trying to make a point of your belief that there is an actual conspiracy, and if so, how do you think it came about?

Or, are you only trying to back up your own belief system, minus a reply that will satisfy you?

While you created the thread as a question looking for answers, I can't help but get the feeling you have your own agenda.

reply to post by Blanca Rose


I will make it plain to you and anyone else. I am not a Christian; I am a Five Point Calvinist. (Of course everyone who reads this will not appreciate my sometimes droll sense of humor.)

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by jagdflieger

 

To accept that there was a man names Jesus who died, came back to life as a flesh and blood man, and also performed many many "miracles" in his time on this earth as literal fact is unfathomable and unreasonable.

Open minded... Really? It's only unreasonable if atheism is true. It's only unfathomable if you start with natruralist presuppositions. The historical facts point to the conclusion that Jesus really rose from the dead.

Five facts that nearly all scholars concede are that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion, that the disciples truly believed he rose from the dead, the uncharacteristic conversion of the skeptic Paul, and the unlikely conversion of the skeptic James. The fifth is the empty tomb. The skeptical theories just do not account for the data. The most reasonable conclusion is Jesus indeed rose from the dead.