Early Christian Conspiracy - How Was It Done?

reply to post by Deaf Alien



Even critical scholars date Paul's letters in the first century and 1st Cor. at 62 AD... its just historical fact.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Wikipdia dates 1 Corinthians at 57CE

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Wikipdia dates 1 Corinthians at 57CE

en.wikipedia.org...

Even better! and there's the problem of WHY would a pious Jew convert... in my previous post. Only the desperate lunatic fringe anti Christians deny that Jesus was a historical figure. Even the those who accept him as a good teacher really fail to account for the 5 facts I listed that point to a literal bodily resurrection. I have yet to see a coherent scenario that accounts for the data.

reply to post by worlds_away


Ok, assume that I'm an ignoramus. Can you please point out where it was broken down how, where and when the conspirators enacted their plan to take someone who might not have existed, but if he did, he was not divine, and turn him into the Christ we know today?

Here is another question. Within two decades of the crucifixion there were already a number of martyrs that were killed for their faith. Why didn't someone say 'Hey, my cousins are from there. They said that there was no Jesus. Bob made him up as a prank.'?

Why would people allow themselves to be persecuted and martyred for someone within 20 years of their supposed death if he wasn't real? It wasn't ancient history at the time. Finding relatives, friends and associates wouldn't be hard. It should have also been easy to find people who said that it was all made up and they were where this Jesus person was supposed to be and he never appeared.

Eric

reply to post by Bigwhammy


You say that the "historical facts" point to the conclusion that Jesus really rose from the dead. And then later you state that the disciples truly believed he rose from the dead. These two statements do not makes sense. Either they know he rose from the dead and he would be the only person ever to do so or they believed he did. They are not the same statements.

As far as I am aware, no other human being has literally risen from the dead (and I mean truly dead) after three days, before of after Jesus. And do not give me the fact that the was not a human being and not tied to the same laws that we are today. If this were possible people would have to seriously consider that zombies could be real. Which for most is not the case.

I can accept the fact that he spiritually (as in his soul or energy) rose from the dead. As I believe happens with all people. Literally though? No. I cannot accept that as a reasonable conclusion.

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Jagd - you have a bee in his bonnet about a "Christ conspiracy", but can you name ONE SINGLE writer who actually claims the religion really started with a "Christ conspiracy" ?

Acharya S

Fantastic !
Now you are actually checking things.

Yes, she is the essentially the ONLY current proponent of that particular theory - she is a lone crackpot that no-one takes seriously.

But that's NOT the mainstream theory at all.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
This is the core of the contention. 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.

Yes, Earl Doherty explains where they came from.
Why haven't you read him yet?
Do you want to learn what the Jesus Myth theory says or not?
It appears not.


Where did the idea of Harry Potter come from?
There is no way she coulds have written that story unless it was true.

Where did the idea of unicorns come from?
There is no way peopel could have written about unicons unless it was true.


Jagd - you seem completely oblivious to the fact that people sometime write things that are not true.

Do you rerally believe everything you read?
Or just everything you read about Jesus?


Q.

In a previous post:

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

Well here is the point. In other posts and on the web there are skeptics who claim that Jesus was a mythical figure. The Gospels are just works of fiction. Paul never wrote about a "real world man". I will not go into the details. However, as in comedy, timing is everything. When you ask them to put their statements in a "who, where, when" context with dates (which they have not done), the whole "Jesus Myth" scenario becomes untenable for the simple reason we have Paul writing in 57CE about a man who was crucified in 31CE in the same town as where He was supposed to have been crucified. There would have been many who would have known "Ain't no such guy". It only becomes tenable if Jesus was a historical figure who was crucified.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The accepted historical facts really don’t make any sense without Jesus.

What facts?
The are no historical facts about Jesus.
Just BELIEF in Jesus from long after the allged events.

Originally posted 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?

So what?
When was this dating system implemented?
Do you even know?


Anyway-
The month June is named after the goddess Juno - so according to you, Juno is real.

The day Thursday is namd after Thor - so according to you, Thor is real.

Great argument.


K.

Gday,

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

WHAT CONSPIRACY ?
There WAS no conspiracy!
What is wrong with you people ?!


Q.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

I don't have an opinion on calendars.

Right.
So you just bluntly ignore the other facts that show you were wrong.
Very convinvincing.

June - means Juno is real.
Thursday - means Thor is real.
AD - means Jesus is real.
Useless argument.

Originally posted 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.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.

Paul had a VISION of Christ - so did others - so what?
Nothing historical there.

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.

Probably an interpolation.
It doesn't even match the Gospel legends.
Did you never notice that ?



Q.

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
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.

Earl Dohery explains all that.

But sadly,
You aren't the slightest bit interested in learnign about it.
(You read his page for no more than 2 minutes.)

You just want to bash your own strawmen.


Q.

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

You say that the "historical facts" point to the conclusion that Jesus really rose from the dead. And then later you state that the disciples truly believed he rose from the dead. These two statements do not makes sense. Either they know he rose from the dead and he would be the only person ever to do so or they believed he did. They are not the same statements.

I am using a minimal facts approach argument. What I am saying is that there is very strong evidence from numerous sources ( including outside of the Bible) that the disciples sincerely believed he rose from the dead. I can not claim what anyone "knows" but the evidence points to the fact they believed it and were willing to die for this belief. This is important in that it debunks the idea that they just made it up. People do not give their lives for a lie.

As far as I am aware, no other human being has literally risen from the dead (and I mean truly dead) after three days, before of after Jesus. And do not give me the fact that the was not a human being and not tied to the same laws that we are today. If this were possible people would have to seriously consider that zombies could be real. Which for most is not the case.

I would agree with you somewhat here. The point is God rose Jesus from the dead. Not that dead people can come back to life on their own. God as the creator of the universe certainly has the power the override natural law.

I can accept the fact that he spiritually (as in his soul or energy) rose from the dead. As I believe happens with all people. Literally though? No. I cannot accept that as a reasonable conclusion.

That fails to account for the empty tomb which is strongly supported by the accepted historical facts. Probably the strongest argument is the Jerusalem factor. It stands to reason that the church would have never had a chance to flourish being so close to the burial site if the tomb had contained Jesus body. The hostile Jews and Romans would have certainly produced the body had there been one available. Additionally, the fact that the Jews accused the disciples of stealing the body amounts to an admission for the empty tomb (Matt. 28:12-13). This is also recorded in extra-biblical writings by Justin Martyr and Tertullian who were early apologists. Finally, the fact that women are listed as the discoverers of the empty tomb speaks to veracity. The testimony of women was not valued by the patriarchal society means this would be damaging to their claim. Thus, it is unlikely this would be a fabrication. The empty tomb is a reasonable reality. Thus saying the disciples saw a ghost or energy fails to account for the data.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.

Paul REALLy had a vision.
So what?

People have visions of Christ to this day.
People have visions of Krishna to this day.
People have visions of Buddha to this day.
So what?

What about all those people whose lives were changed by an appearance of Krishna ?

How do YOU explain that, Bigwhammy ?
Hmmm?


K.

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
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?

No,
he accidentally misunderstood the Jesus Myth theory to be a "conspiracy theory" - when it isn't.

But now he can't admit it.


K.

reply to post by Kapyong


Legendary embellishment takes time to evolve, so the existence of early creeds is evidence that disproves legend. Creeds are oral traditions in semantic formulas identified by their meter and parallelism. They were organized in a formula that made them easy to remember. This allows scholars to detect the existence of very early creedal material within Paul’s letters.

The deity of Christ is often assumed to be legendary embellishment yet Philippians 2:6-11 is identified as an early creed which talks about Jesus being “in very nature God.” This is corroborated by the simple confession, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and even the doctrine of the Trinity is evidenced by creeds like the Trinitarian formulas of 2 Cor. 13:14 and Mt. 28:19. In addition, the existence of very early creedal testimony like in 1 Cor. 15 precludes legendary development of the resurrection account.

The historical 5 facts above concerning the resurrection I listed are accepted by the even most critical scholars.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Five facts that nearly all scholars concede are that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion,

Nonsense.
This is just what faithful believers faithfully believe.
Scholars do all agree.
Robert Price does not, many others do not.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
that the disciples truly believed he rose from the dead,

So what?
People believe Krishna is real.
So what?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
the uncharacteristic conversion of the skeptic Paul,

SO what?
People have visions all the time.
SO what?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
and the unlikely conversion of the skeptic James.

Oh please!
That's just part of the STORY.
We do not actually have any writing from James - just a forgery that makes NO MENTION of a historical Jesus at all.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The fifth is the empty tomb.

What bollocks.
This is a faithful belief NOT supported by any facts.

In fact, the empty tomb story was essetially unknown to early Christians :
Paul never mentions the empty tomb,
James never mentions the empty tomb,
Not Jude, John, Hebrews, etc. etc.

The first dateable reference to the empty tomb is from early-mid 2nd century.

That's right - No Christian writer outside the Gospel even mentioned the empty tomb until a CENTURY after the alleged fact.

How do YOU explain that the first couple of dozen Christian writings do NOT mention the empty tomb, Bigwhammy?


It's no good citing the Gospels - no Christian mentions them until 2nd century either. The stories about Jesus came FROM the mythical Gospels.

But NOT ONE Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus or anyone else who had met Jesus.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.

Paul REALLy had a vision.
So what?

People have visions of Christ to this day.
People have visions of Krishna to this day.
People have visions of Buddha to this day.
So what?

What about all those people whose lives were changed by an appearance of Krishna ?

How do YOU explain that, Bigwhammy ?
Hmmm?


K.

Paul and James were skeptics. Did James and Paul have the same hallucination or vision? It is highly suspect psychologically, considering they would be antagonistic to it. Additionally, if one reads the accounts of Jesus post resurrection appearances you get the idea that Jesus anticipated this objection. His appearances involved multisensory space time interactions.

First the early creed in 1 Cor. 15 reports that he appeared to multiple witnesses at once. Hallucinations and visions are in the eye of the beholder, they simply are not group events. The disciples report space time physical events like Jesus eating fish in John 21 and Thomas touching Jesus wounds (Jn. 20:27).

Finally, they do not account for the empty tomb. Had the disciples only had visions the Jews would just have produced a body. If there had been a body in the tomb it would have been produced and Christianity would have never started.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Even critical scholars date Paul's letters in the first century and 1st Cor. at 62 AD... its just historical fact.

So what?

There is no historical proof in Paul.
Paul's Christ was a spiritual being who was crucified in the lower heavens.
Paul does place Jesus anywhere in history.


K.

reply to post by Kapyong

Paul never mentions the empty tomb,

The creed in 1 Cor. 15 infers the empty tomb. Plus, the crucifixion took place on the outskirts of Jerusalem, the same location as the rapid spread of the Christian faith. The rapid growth of the church within a few months of the crucifixion simply would not be possible if the Jews had access to Jesus body in the tomb. They surely would have stopped the church before it ever got off the ground by producing the body. Hostile witnesses make for strong evidence because their testimony has no ulterior motive. The second line of reasoning is that of enemy attestation. Matthew, Justin Martyr and Tertullian all address the Jewish claim that the disciples stole the body. This hostile claim is a tacit admission of the empty tomb. The third evidence is that women are listed as the primary discoverers of the empty tomb. The fact that women are the first on the scene tells us that the Gospels are making an effort to be accurate and truthful. When all three of these arguments are combined the case for the empty tomb is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Even better! and there's the problem of WHY would a pious Jew convert... in my previous post. Only the desperate lunatic fringe anti Christians deny that Jesus was a historical figure. Even the those who accept him as a good teacher really fail to account for the 5 facts I listed that point to a literal bodily resurrection. I have yet to see a coherent scenario that accounts for the data.

Beacuse you've never even looked, have you ?

These alleged "facts" are fully explained by Earl Dohertyy in his theory :
jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...

Will you refuse to look at that too?

And then keep on dishonesty saying "I've never seen an explanation", after refusing to read the explanation given?


K.