I don't mean to derail or hijack the thread but one thing that helps me in my search is Bible prophesy. For example, Micah 5:2


"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."


I don't know about you but I find this rather amazing.. why? because it was written about 700 BC. It also predicted WHERE Jesus would be born.


So the 'conspiracy' started WAY before Jesus came into this world!

There are many more prophesies that precursor Jesus and you are going to have to dispell those to even start from the later time you want to start from.. I hope this makes sense.


Anyhows, out of respect for the OP, I'm going to try and focus more on the question but it is a difficult one, especially considering the fact that I don't consider Christianity a conspiracy at all. Was there a conspiracy to derail, distort, cover up, use Christianity for evil ends/desires or just plain all out destroy Christianity period? Of course.








[edit on 30-4-2010 by ViewFromTheStars]

I love when people say o well what do I lose out on if I die and their is no god?

Well I believe number one society is held back. Number two christianity is a mass cult brainwashed full of very hateful people where not even the own priests preaching to the masses may be trusted. Number three if you support these religions you very much support all the violence they bring and you are only fueling the fire. Number four a lot of religious nuts never live a full life because they are always afraid. Kids with very religious parents and bainwashed and denied many liberties.

Christianity is an army waiting to be called on not by god, but by the people christians trust in carrying on the story of jesus.

I just find it so funny that god is so tricky and deceptive and has created a religion that causes more violence than the non religious themselves. I also thinks it's funny that the smartest people in the world are busy trying to advance our society and are not interested in a god. While the people that tend to be a lot less smart do not care about advancement or peace just violence until the violence gets so bad that jesus is needed to return to stop it.

And yes it has been studied many times and the people that do not practice religion tend to be much smarter than the people that do. The research is out there, but anything to do with debating religious people is impossible anyways.

The military does not need any time of brainwave equipment for brain washing. they have christians.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

Not discouraging anyone, but the original topic was a request for comments on:

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.

Not to discuss NDE's.

Also the statement:

Well I believe number one society is held back. Number two christianity is a mass cult brainwashed full of very hateful people where not even the own priests preaching to the masses may be trusted. Number three if you support these religions you very much support all the violence they bring and you are only fueling the fire. Number four a lot of religious nuts never live a full life because they are always afraid. Kids with very religious parents and bainwashed and denied many liberties.

This is an incorrect generalization as I can attest. I am not brainwashed. To state that all Christians are brainwashed and religious nuts is a gross generalization as stating that all atheists intellectual slobs.

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
There is an original letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius in the Library of Rome, discussing Jesus. There is also a copy of the letter in Washington D.C.

Pontius Pilate came to the conclusion that Jesus was the son of God in the letter, so that to me is proof that Jesus existed.

Where faith steps in is in believing he was actually the son of God.

really ? ok carbon date the letter for its origin an the time it was made
then ill speculate ..

The early Christian church interests me, but I had a hard time with your OP, since it seems to set up a "straw man." A quartet of weak, ill informed, and far-out, allegedly "atheist" views are put forward, and then you demand to know how that dog's breakfast could possibly have been made to work.

Well, that makes for a short thread. It wouldn't have worked. So, it's a lucky thing that that's not the chief basis of informed criticism of Christian foundations.

To dispose of one point quickly,

2. The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, Jesus was never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived. Paul and other early writers speak of Jesus entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure.

1 Corinthians 11:23ff gives a serviceable, earthly Passion narrative, portraying Jesus as a human being who was handed over, took and broke bread, spoke words, etc.

Most atheists can be expected to know the difference between "Paul often spoke of Jesus as the Christ, a spiritual rather than historical figure," and "Paul never spoke of Jesus as a man."

So, this is not typical of informed Christian criticism, and it's one-quarter of your narrative.

Another easy swipe,

4. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, was there a figure of Jesus of Nazareth as a man living in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate. The Gospels were forgeries written by persons unknown who never met Jesus of Nazareth.

Well, yes, events that supposedly occurred in the first third of the century showed up in writing during the last third. So what?

Until Paul had his "visions," in mid-century, the "Jesus movement" was, so far as can be discerned, Jesus' old band telling each other stories about their glory days. Paul created the audience for a written biography, but couldn't serve that market himself. He apparently didn't know much biographical detail, and probably didn't care, either.

As to the late canonical Gospels, Luke acknowledges that he is not a witness, and John says he bases his factual stuff on written testimony by someone he calls "The Beloved Disciple," who seems to be dead at the time the writing appears. In any case, the author of John does not claim to be the Beloved Disciple.

The early gospels, Matthew and Mark, don't even address the issue of witness.

If no gospel writer claimed to have been an eyewitness, then where is the "conspiracy" that they weren't eyewitnesses? What's the point of forging a document that is already hearsay? Easier to lie that the early ones were written by eyewitnesses - it is not as if all that many people in the original audience could read anyway.

There's nothing here. None of the four points offers any plausible theory of early church success, much less a theory of success by conspiracy. If that's all there was to the "atheist" critique of early Christianity, then your problem would simply solve itself.

Originally posted by A Novel
I love when people say o well what do I lose out on if I die and their is no god?

Well I believe number one society is held back. Number two christianity is a mass cult brainwashed full of very hateful people where not even the own priests preaching to the masses may be trusted. Number three if you support these religions you very much support all the violence they bring and you are only fueling the fire. Number four a lot of religious nuts never live a full life because they are always afraid. Kids with very religious parents and bainwashed and denied many liberties.

Christianity is an army waiting to be called on not by god, but by the people christians trust in carrying on the story of jesus.

I just find it so funny that god is so tricky and deceptive and has created a religion that causes more violence than the non religious themselves. I also thinks it's funny that the smartest people in the world are busy trying to advance our society and are not interested in a god. While the people that tend to be a lot less smart do not care about advancement or peace just violence until the violence gets so bad that jesus is needed to return to stop it.

And yes it has been studied many times and the people that do not practice religion tend to be much smarter than the people that do. The research is out there, but anything to do with debating religious people is impossible anyways.

The military does not need any time of brainwave equipment for brain washing. they have christians.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

I know it's common courtesy here on the forums to pick pieces of a post quoted and address these points. But I find an argument with your entire post. What you've done is taken your opinion and posted it as fact. Then, further more, you've gone on to assure us that this is fact without actually giving the reader any data to examine in comparison with your claims.

Thirdly, your claim religious people are responsible for more deaths than non-religious is incredulous. Mao, Hitler, and Stalin are all great atheists to take into account and study in regards to this argument.. In fact, Hitler was a believer in Evolution as presented by Charles Darwin. Of course, this was twisted by Hitler and turned into something else, but it was the basic premise of his movement. For more on this I would suggest one watch "Expelled" by Ben Stein. However, because we cannot count every body from the beginning of time until now, there is no definitive answer. Thus, your claim is outlandish at best.

Please supply data for your claims next time.

Just as an edit note: After re-reading your post I also find it offensive that you claim the intelligent people are the individuals who don't believe in any type of religion.

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." As defined by Wikipedia.

Excluding the supernatural agencies and replacing that word with natural, one could substitute this definition for most science. Don't get me wrong, I love science and am making no implications. I am only making a point. You are at the least misinformed and at the most, ignorant. Please do not make such outrageous claims that have no real empirical data to support them. All the people working to change the world are the intelligent non-believers? How ridiculous.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by acapablemind]

Originally posted by jagdflieger


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.

The conspiracy started with the letters from Pilate, to Tiberius.

All sorts of conspiracies could have come about. The connection to paganism began, out of the guilt Pilate felt, after having Jesus crucified. Pilate was a Pagan, yet sent a letter to Tiberius that he felt Jesus was the son of God.

However you want to take it, the fact that Jesus was acknowledged between the two, shows that he was real. Perhaps the body was stolen? Jeses did not really die? Somebody figured out, that out of the popularity of Jesus, that controlling the masses would be easier, or money could be made?

There are many ways that by just these letters, a conspiracy began to take shape and mold, on the day Jesus supposedly died.

You will never get any sort of proof that will stand up in a court of law, which I see you requested, to prove of his existance beyond the shadow of a doubt. You also will never get any sort of proof to show that he didn't ever exist, either.

Remember at the time the crucifixion took place, Rome, which was full of paganism at the time, was in control of the lands where Jesus came from.

To me it is easy to see how, Jesus, a person who actually existed, was incorporated into Paganism. That is what makes up Christian religion. This was way before any scripture was written or published, making them well after the fact.

edit to fix quote


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Blanca Rose]

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
What I am asking is how was this "Christ conspiracy" implemented;

The modern Jesus Myth theory is NOT about a conspiracy at all (except for a tiny few crackpots and old nonsense.) Please jagdflieger, pay attention.

You believers keep saying this, without ever understanding it's NOT about a conspiracy! (Sure, I named my other thread with 'conspiracy' because I know people love that word here - but didn't you notice that I did NOT ONCE claim a conspiracy? Hmmm?)

It's more a misunderstanding.
It's NOT a conspiracy.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
The issue of document forgeries has been debated before. For every expert who says a particular document is a forgery, there is an expert who says it is not.

Nonsense.
There is a firm consensus of 99% of modern scholars that many of the NT books were NOT by the person whose names they bear. It was common practice in those times to attribute books to previous famous people. But SOME of the NT books ARE deliberate forgeries.

You can find people who believe faeries are real - that does NOT make these 2 claims equal :
* faeries are real
* faeries are not real

But that's what jagdflieger's argument amounts to - as if the faithful beliefs of some faithful believers are equal to the weight of the firm consensus of modern scholars.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
What seems to be missing is a plausible scenario of implementation. A narrative of how Paul (or unknown persons) were able to put together myths (Dionysus, Mithra, Attis, Isis, etc.) and make them into a flesh and blood man and then "sell" that concept to the public.

No.
Paul's Jesus was not based on Mithras etc. at all. Mate - you have confused the crackpot nonsense with the real Jesus Myth.

Jesus being based on Attis, Mithras etc. is a MINORITY CRACKPOT view - it's a simplistic view which has been discarded. The mainstream Jesus Myth theory do NOT argue that nowadays, I thought I had made that clear - these are MINOR elements in the story.

Also - you seem to be arguing that people could not possibly believe something that was not true - but people DID believe in Attis, and Dionysus, and Osrirs etc. They WERE succesfully "sold" to the public. A gullible, superstitious public who believed any old nonsense - just like nowadays.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
What I want to see is:
1. Where was the "Christian conspiracy" started.

It wasn't a conspiracy.
It started before Paul, by various cults, based on the new son of god meme.
Paul was the 1st to write it down - Paul's Jesus was a spiritual being - nothing historical to sell there.

The vast majority of the Jesus myth is crafted from the Old Testament - Paul says it all the time "according to the scriptures" - he means, I have decoded the information about Jesus in the scriptures, for the 1st time. Paul says just that.

Then, other members of the Christ cult also wrote books that became the epistles - but still no detail on a historical Jesus.

Then, later, AFTER the war had killed everyone, G.Mark wrote a grand story based on this Iesous - people LOVED it, copied, told it far and wide.
He used several sources :
* Paul as the spark that got him going
* the Tanakh for the episodes in the story
* some elements of pagan literature, such as
. the empty tomb theme - a popular element from romance novels at the time.)
. the dieing and rising son-of-god motif

But G.Mark did NOT "sell" this to anyone.
He wrote a grand work of spiritual religious literature - people LOVED it.

G.Mark never said it was history at all. There was no conspiracy.

Then people copied and improved the Gospels with new versions of the story. There were no claims it was historical in those early days - that all came LATER.

Only LATER, did people insist it was true.

Later, people HAD to believe it, or they were punished.
The rest is history.


But no -
it was NOT a conspiracy at all - it was faith, stories, mis-understandings, politics, some forgeries.

No actual conspiracy.


K.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Kapyong]

Gday,

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
The conspiracy started with the letters from Pilate, to Tiberius.

See?
People here LOVE a 'conspiracy'.
This site is about people claiming conspiracies.

Of course - those documents are known late forgeries.

Later church history is filled with later forgeries - the donation, the decretals, the constitutions, etc. etc....

But it did not START with a conspiracy.

It started with visions, and beliefs, and faith, and claims, and books, and later claims about those earlier books.



K.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Obviously no one who has read the original posting has taken the time to check out my other threads on this forum and know where I am "coming from". What I want is a skeptic response of an implementation scenario. Of course I have my own scenario.

I wouldn't waste my time. I've heard enough preaching and circular logic in my day.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by enragedmaniac]

Originally posted by worlds_away
There is almost no point in debating with someone like jagdflieger. ALMOST.

I just finished "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. START there. But I honestly doubt you will read it.

Another good book is The Crucifixion of Truth by Tony Bushby.

I would not suggest the reading of this book by the unstable because it will surely below away a person's belief in the Catholic or any Christian Church.
An unstable person whose existence is anchored by his belief in Jesus Christ may become totally unglued.

Gday,

Originally posted by acapablemind
Thirdly, your claim religious people are responsible for more deaths than non-religious is incredulous. Mao, Hitler, and Stalin are all great atheists to take into account and study in regards to this argument.

Why?
These people did NOT kill in the name of atheism.
Are you trying to pretend they did?

Did Mao send his armies forth to destroy theism?
No.

Did Stalin attack the forces of theist countries?
No.

Their alleged atheism had NOTHING to do with their killings.

Of course, the opposite is true for theism - throughout history, armies and crazies have killed in the name of God.

No army EVER marched in the name of Not God.
Ever.

But plenty of armies marched and killed in the name of God.


And Hitler was hardly an atheist - he supported the Church, and they supported him - you DID know that, right? That Pacelli (the future pope) signed an agreement to help the Nazis come to power? An agreement that gave the Catholic church rights over German people's religion, in return for the church helping and supporting the Nazis.

But of course, faithful believers tell the story the OPPOSITE way - as if Hitler attacked the church - when they actually supported each other.

Originally posted by acapablemind
In fact, Hitler was a believer in Evolution as presented by Charles Darwin.

Holy Godwin, batman !

What you mean is :
everyone who disagrees with your faithful beliefs is a Nazi, right?

In fact the vast majority of theists support evolution.
Yet some believers still try and pretend that all
evolution = atheism = nazism

What a silly pathetic argument.


K.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Kapyong]