Early Christian Conspiracy - How Was It Done?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by ViewFromTheStars
 


What is missing is a plausible explanation as to how this was done. Also missing is why these men would do what Doherty and others claim they did. In short they claim that some Jewish men created a myth of a man crucified in the city where he was supposed to have been crucified right after his alleged death. All "Jesus was a myth" scenarios I have seen lack a plausible explanation as to how this myth was generated, only statements that this document or that document was a forgery, there were prior pagan gods, etc. They are basically just assertions. What I am looking for is a plausible scenario (something you could take to a grand jury).

[edit on 30-4-2010 by jagdflieger]


This is really comical. You set up a straw man so you can knock it down.
The myth and forgery of Jesus Christ the Son of God was molded over centuries. And by the way, once Jewish men made up this myth and believed and propagated it, they had renounced their faith. They were no longer Jews but Usurpers of the Jewish faith.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by A Novel
 

Einstein believed in God! There's a long list of others if you're truly objective it doesn't take that long to research.
Now let us look at the wars we have fought. We are now fighting a so-called war on terror.
The united States attacked Afghan. and Iraq. Secular army attacked Muslims.
It's all about oil not religion though.
The Persian gulf war. It was not about religion it was about oil.
The Vietnam war. Not one thing religious about that war.
Same way with the revolutionary war to start our country. We fought for independence.
Nothing religious about the war of 1812.
No religious reasons to fight the civil war where we lost more men in that war than all other wars combined.
I hear all the time religion is the reason for all this hatred and violence and wars but it just isn't true. The brainwashing is filling the minds of people today with hatred toward anyone who is a believer. It is constantly done in our schools and it is a crime. Children and anyone else should be free to choose to make up their own hearts and minds.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by A Novel
 

Einstein believed in God! There's a long list of others if you're truly objective it doesn't take that long to research.


Einstein did NOT believe in YOUR god - the god of religion.
He said so clearly.



Originally posted by rick1
Now let us look at the wars we have fought. We are now fighting a so-called war on terror. The united States attacked Afghan. and Iraq. Secular army attacked Muslims.


It's a Christian army - spurred on with Christian themes and words.
There have been numerous cases of non Christians in the US army complaining about this Christian emphasis in the amry of a country that calls itself Christian, and whose leaders prays to Christ and God publicly.

But
Of course there ARE some wars NOT about religion.

But many HAVE been fought in the name of God.

But NO WARS ever were fought in the name of Not God - ever.


K.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars



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.


Almighty!! then you know that there was a place called Nicaea that had a Emperor called Constantine I that had Scholars , High Priests , etc.. er holy men came to this Council and Put all the Literature about the Old testament and Jesus past Historic Stories put them on a table and Conjure up Superpower full everlasting caterer Jesus to make him as Equal as his Father (God) well the Hebrew God that is ) to Make him (Jesus) a God as in God in the Flesh
and add in a certain literature to put the story of Jesus into place
and Leave Out the Literature Cannons Literature Cannonsthat would steer a Believer into a different direction you know book of Cain, book of Enoch ,Book of Ezekiel Book of Job , Gospel of Thomas as this book i mention is not accepted by the church and to why ! it was dated in the 4th century just think Animal Farm Book , Movie what ever..

The Conspiracy
Mystical = Book of Job
Book of Enoch
Not Accepted in Jewish or Christain Religion Except one the Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Council of Nicea
Gospel of Thomas
The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Second Council of NicaeaThe Second Council of Nicaea


I dont know about you but if you look at these Biblical Books into a Mind of modern Technological Man you begin to wonder of the Heavenly Beings are from another World ! Plane just not at all from this Earth,, when you realize this your mind begins to open up

www.nature.com...

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ViewFromTheStars]


[edit on 2-5-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Response to kapyong. et al.

From the dictionary:



con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.


Since the Romans (and the Sanhedrin) would consider the early Christians subversive, calling early Christianity a conspiracy would not be entirely incorrect. Also may I point out that many others have used that term before I used it to to describe the early Christian movement.



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.


I direct you to the following link:

www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...

where Doherty states:



Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.


Doherty specifically mentions Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris. So I am to suppose that Doherty is a crackpot and not in the mainstream of Jesus Myth theory. Then why did poster who made that comment about "a MINORITY CRACKPOT view" then link to the web site (Doherty's) which presents such a "crackpot idea". Also he failed to notice that in a prior posting I linked to Doherty's web site. (Look at the top of page 3). So then we should assume that Doherty is a "minority crackpot" and should be ignored. However it is very germane to the subject; otherwise, one would have to state that Paul (et. al.) created Jesus out of a theological vacuum.



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.


When have the following passages from the epistles of Paul:

Romans


(Rom 1:1) Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God,
(Rom 1:2) which He promised before through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
(Rom 1:3) concerning His Son who came of the seed of David according to flesh,
(Rom 1:4) who was marked out the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord;




(Rom 5:6) for we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for ungodly ones.
(Rom 5:7) For with difficulty one will die for a just one, (for perhaps one even dares to die for the sake of the good one),
(Rom 5:8) but God commends His love to us in this, that we being yet sinners, Christ died for us.
(Rom 5:9) Much more then, being justified now by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath through Him.


1 Corinthians


(1Co 1:22) And since Jews ask for a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom,
(1Co 1:23) we, on the other hand, preach Christ crucified (truly an offense to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks),
(1Co 1:24) but to the called out ones, both to Jews and to Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God;




(1Co 11:23) For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
(1Co 11:24) and giving thanks, He broke and said, Take, eat; this is My body which is broken on behalf of you; this do in remembrance of Me.
(1Co 11:25) In the same way the cup also, after supping, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink, do this in remembrance of Me.
(1Co 11:26) For as often as you may eat this bread, and drink this cup, you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord, until He shall come.
(1Co 11:27) So that whoever should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.


There are other passages like the ones above, but the ones quoted should suffice. It sure looks like Paul was writing about a flesh and blood man ("seed of David according to flesh", "took bread", "was crucified", "died"). Also it is hard to imagine that a "spiritual crucification" would be "an offense to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks"; therefore it is logical to assume that Paul was referring to something that happened in this world and to a real world person.

In response to the "straw man" charges, the statements were not designed to be arguments but a summary of contentions of current skeptics (indeed they are summaries from Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle in a Nutshell" which I linked to in a previous posting). What is missing are the narrative details that place them in a historical time and place. For a beginning of the narrative:

1. Where did it (Christianity) start.
2. When did it start (approximate date).
3. Who started it.
4. How was it spread throughout the Roman Empire.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   

In response to the "straw man" charges, the statements were not designed to be arguments but a summary of contentions of current skeptics (indeed they are summaries from Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle in a Nutshell" which I linked to in a previous posting). What is missing are the narrative details that place them in a historical time and place. For a beginning of the narrative:

1. Where did it (Christianity) start.
2. When did it start (approximate date).
3. Who started it.
4. How was it spread throughout the Roman Empire.

How is that a "response" to the straw man situation? What was in the OP were silly, nonsensical lampoons of serious arguments, presented as the sum and substance of the secular (renamed "atheist") critique of Christianity.

The objection is that they fail to "summarize the contentions of current skeptics." At best, they are your retelling of a summary of Doherty.

What is missing are the real arguments of those who disagree with you.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
First, I don't accept the premise of your thread, as you leave no alternative except that Christianity is a conspiracy... it is not. As for written or recorded proof, there is no written record of my great grand mother, but I can assure you she did live... as did Jesus.

Secondly, what proof do you have that it was a conspiracy? Religious miracles aside, is it not possible that Jesus simply went into a deep-deathlike coma following the trauma suffered and then awoke? Unexplained events do happen that are outside the norm...miracle cures/healings, natural events...thtroughout history, they have been documented and scientifically explained.

Lastly, if it is a point of view that you do not agree with, you could call into question the validity of it...was it a "conspiracy?" For instance, we have proof of the Holocaust, yet we have people that question if it even happened. Same for 9/11...there were NO PLANES....even though we have the videos. Or we have people that deny God and Jesus or Buddha or Muhammed, yet they defend to the death that Bush and Obama are reptillian aliens that eat missing babies under the Denver Intl Airport.

We are talking about documentation from 2 centuries ago, most people were illiterate, there were no photos, no means of tracking. Yet, most if not all the circumstancial evidence supports what is written...people and officials, places, ways of life, medical treatments and the results of trauma... for instance, after a severe beating to the back and ribs followed by crucifixian, fluid builds up in the lungs and chest cavity. When pierced...it was primarily fluid mixed with blood that escaped the wound to Jesus' side....medically correct.

So, as a Christian I respectfully disagree with you. You have the right to believe what you wish...but I do too. I pray that someday, you never need the supernatural and healing and loving abilities of a God that you can not prove exists.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I am not sure if i would say the Bible is wrong. But it does have mistakes.

A lot of it has to do with their knowledge of observation.

Moses for instance called the heavens for a Firmament. A firmament is something that is solid. In the old days of Moses everyone except the people from the east (China) though that space was solid. Made of iron and so on.

Moses also called energy for waters. Which have lead just about everyone to misinterpret Genesis chapter one all wrong.

Remember knowledge is something that is passed on even wrong knowledge.

I really do think Jesus walked among us. Our traditions would be strong enough evidence to support that. Even though our traditions have changed a lot over time, do to that our social environment has evolved as time goes by. And as time goes by traditions will change because Jesus and the word of God becomes old news. And we replace old traditions with new traditions that suit our new social environment.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I`m not surprised that we don`t find more writings about jesus. The romans would have suppressed abything like that. The best way to try to stop his movement from spreading more after his death would be to outlaw any mention of him. I would imagine that publishing a book talking about all the great things jesus did could lead to you getting executed or imprisoned. So they tried to erase him from history. But christians just went underground like a secret society, using codes and symbols to communicate in public. Then eventually constantine made christianity the only legal religion, and of course he corrupted it to fit his own agenda, which was to bring the people together and make them easier to control. So yeah, the version of christianity we have today is very skewed, making it almost impossible to be a "true" christian. Luckily, we still have our own ability to reach inside and find our purpose in life. God is in each one of us, so we don`t really need the bible or any preacher to tell us what to do. We know right from wrong. A lot of "christians" might disagree. I guess we will see what happens.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





The objection is that they fail to "summarize the contentions of current skeptics." At best, they are your retelling of a summary of Doherty. What is missing are the real arguments of those who disagree with you.


First of all, Doherty is very representative of current skeptics and serves as an example of current skeptical thinking. The whole point is:

In view of your skeptical view point, please answer the following SEEMINGLY SIMPLE QUESTIONS concerning early Christianity (~30CE to ~100CE).
1. Where did it begin?
2. When did it begin?
3. Who started it?
4. How was it started?
Then expound on how it was spread through the Roman Empire.

It seems every one is being "bent out of shape" because I asked these apparently simple questions.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Are you really asking questions that you want answered? It would seem to me that if you really wanted the answers you would research it yourself, and not ask others to do the research for you. And then you could come back and tell us what you believe the answers are. You have stated you have an idea of how this happened? Why not share your view with us?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
Response to kapyong. et al.

From the dictionary:



con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.


Since the Romans (and the Sanhedrin) would consider the early Christians subversive, calling early Christianity a conspiracy would not be entirely incorrect. Also may I point out that many others have used that term before I used it to to describe the early Christian movement.


So, now you're playing word games to TRY and MAKE it a conspiracy, when that is NOT the claim. Now you pretend the REAL apostles being "subservise" is the same claim as a fictional story made up dishonestly by others.


You're just making it up as you go.
You have no interest in actually studying the subject.
Stop pretending you do.



Originally posted by jagdflieger
I direct you to the following link:
www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...
where Doherty states:



Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.


Which does NOT state that Christianity was a conspiracy based on Attis etc.
You are wrong.



Originally posted by jagdflieger
Doherty specifically mentions Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris. So I am to suppose that Doherty is a crackpot and not in the mainstream of Jesus Myth theory.


Doherty does NOT state it's a conspiracy - he MENTIONS them in passing - they are NOT the basis of his theory.
Not that you'd know. You read only a few words and got it wrong.
Pathetic.



Originally posted by jagdflieger
Then why did poster who made that comment about "a MINORITY CRACKPOT view" then link to the web site (Doherty's) which presents such a "crackpot idea".


The "crackpot idea" is that early Christianity started as a "conspiracy".
Earl does NOT argue that at all.
You just don't underdtand English.

The Jesus Myth is NOT based on a "conspiracy" at all.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and you have no interest in learning.

If you ever bother to actually READ what Earl argues, and can show that you actually understand his claims - then you get back to me.

As it is, you are beating a stupid straw-man of your own making.


Q.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
In view of your skeptical view point, please answer the following SEEMINGLY SIMPLE QUESTIONS concerning early Christianity (~30CE to ~100CE).
1. Where did it begin?
2. When did it begin?
3. Who started it?
4. How was it started?
Then expound on how it was spread through the Roman Empire.


I answered that above in detail.
You rudely ignored it all.



Q.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
First of all, Doherty is very representative of current skeptics and serves as an example of current skeptical thinking.


But you FAILED to understand what Doherty said.

Doherty does NOT argue a conspiracy.
You got it 100% totally wrong.

Go away until you understand what you are talking about.


K.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by worlds_away
Are you really asking questions that you want answered? It would seem to me that if you really wanted the answers you would research it yourself, and not ask others to do the research for you. And then you could come back and tell us what you believe the answers are. You have stated you have an idea of how this happened? Why not share your view with us?


Indeed.
He has no interest in learning at all.
He completely got Doherty wrong.

He's just here to preach his own "conspiracy theory".

A theory which has NOTHING to do with the mainstream Jesus Myth argument.


Q.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 





The conspiracy of the historical Jesus

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Probably the biggest un-resolved religious conspiracy to this day is the conspiracy to convince people that Jesus actually existed - by simply claiming it's already proven.


I was not the first person to use the word conspiracy.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Gday,

So,
let's recap - Jagd starts with his version of the Jesus Myth theory :


Originally posted by jagdflieger
We have the following skeptic contentions:
1. There are no Roman records of Jesus; there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, and the claimed evidence is very weak, late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all. Therefore the historical Jesus never existed.
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.
3. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of widespread savior god belief systems (Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris).
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.


Firstly -
I never called the Gospels "forgeries" at all.

I said they were not written by the persons whose names they now bear - that's an important difference that Jagd doesn't seem to get. G.Mark was written as a piecee of religious literature, but it was NOT a "forgery", even though it was not true - anymore than Shakesepeare is a "forgery".

It received it's name LATER, but we have no idea who wrote it. The author did NOT falsely claim to be Mark.

(But some later books such as 2 Peter WERE "forgeries" - they were falsely claimed by the author to be by Peter. That's a forgery.)




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


Whoa !
See the problem !?
Jagd just added the phrase "Christ conspiracy" himself!

But the "sceptic contentions" he listed above say NOTHING about a "Christ conspiracy" (a "conspiracy" is an prior agreement to commit a crime or evil act.)

The Jesus Myth is not a "conspiracy theory" at all.
But Jag is convinced so, for some reason.

Perhaps Jagd is using the phrase "conspiracy (theory)" in it's popular usage - meaning : "crazy stuff I don't believe".


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" ?

Just one?


K.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post 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." - jagdflieger

Well, I've checked them out and honestly you got no one biting in BTS, so you started this thread here.

"Of course I have my own scenario". Really, well then why don't you share with us what your scenario is?

edit: to add source.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by worlds_away]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by Kapyong
 




The conspiracy of the historical Jesus

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Probably the biggest un-resolved religious conspiracy to this day is the conspiracy to convince people that Jesus actually existed - by simply claiming it's already proven.


I was not the first person to use the word conspiracy.


Jesus H Christ !
That's a conspiracy TODAY to convince people that Jesus existed, by joining to falsely pretend the evidence is solid.

I am saying that groups of people NOW who know better, falsely claim Jesus existence is solid, when they really know the evdience is not there - that's fairly called a conspiracy.


But -
YOUR CLAIM is that the Jesus Myth says it STARTED 2 millenia ago with a "Christ conspiracy".

They are completely different things.

It should be clear now to everyone on this thread that jagdflieger completely got it wrong when he claimed the Jesus myth asserts it all started with a "Christ conspiracy".

Today's Jesus Myth theory does NOT say Christianity started with a "Christ conspiracy".

Will jagdflieger ever admit that I wonder ?


K.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
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




He's just here to preach his own "conspiracy theory".


Well it seems that I am not the only one who is preaching their theories.




Which does NOT state that Christianity was a conspiracy based on Attis etc. You are wrong.


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.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join