Early Christian Conspiracy - How Was It Done?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I have heard of people dying for lesser beliefs that were not lies, not in the sense that we think of a lie being told, but as a false belief. We do know that humans in the past have held false beliefs and have even killed for them, I would assume they would also die for them if they truly believed in the cause they were fighting for, but this does not make what they believed true.

We know that our ancestors believed the Earth was flat. We know that other cultures believed, and still believe in many Gods that they sacrificed animals and people for. That fact alone does not mean what they believed was true.

If I accept that God can come down as he wishes and rise Jesus from the dead, I honestly have to accept that the same may happen today. Which I cannot. Believe me, if you could prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that happened, I would not be here questioning it.

The fact of the empty tomb.... I suppose someone taking the body does not suffice, animals even? I would not suppose to know their reasoning for this, taking the body, all I know is that it did not disappear, it did not vanish into thin air. It was a body, it will react as every other human body before and after Jesus. To accept otherwise, means I would have to accept that a body would just vanish today. We find empty graves and tombs everywhere. We do not for one second believe that God came down and took it. The testimony of women, because it was not valued, might just be the reason they used it.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by worlds_away]

Oh by the way Krishna was a real historical figure who live around 3100BCE and indeed there was a War of Kurukshetra. Which is why timing is important. The man Krishna was turned into the god Krishna with the retelling of the story over a period of 1000 years. The story of Jesus was recorded in only a few years after His Ministry.

Originally posted by Kapyong
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.

No in chapter 15 of 1 Cor. we have an early creed that dates within a few years of the crucifixion - including the appearance to James who assumed Jesus was crazy - yet later converts! And Paul clearly speaks of and argues for literal bodily resurrection. It's pretty must the thrust of the whole chapter. We have multiple believers and 2 known skeptic predisposed to disbelieve. Visions just don't account for the data.

Gday,

Originally posted by EricD
Ok, assume that I'm an ignoramus. Can you please point out where it was broken down how, where and when the conspirators

*sigh*

There was NO conspiracy.
There were NO conspirators.

Originally posted by EricD
Here is another question. Within two decades of the crucifixion there were already a number of martyrs that were killed for their faith.

Rubbish.
That's just part of the STORY.
There is no evidence for that.

Why did Gandalf give his life for the Fellowship of the Ring, if they were fictional?

Originally posted by EricD
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.'?

Because no-one actually heard the Jesus of Nazareth story until early-mid 2nd century - after everyone had been killed by the Romans in 2 wars.

Originally posted by EricD
Why would people allow themselves to be persecuted and martyred for someone within 20 years of their supposed death if he wasn't real?

Because that's just chapter 2 of the story, used to bolster chpater 1 on the STORY.

Why did Ron Weasly risk his life for the fictional Harry Potter?
Hmmm?

Originally posted by EricD
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

Why did no-one ever say Hercules didn't exist?
Why did no-one ever say Osiris didn't exist?
Why did no-one ever say Bacchus didn't exist?

Same reason -
people believed in weird stuff - then and now.

And when the Jesus story finally DID become known, it WAS attacked as :
"fiction"
"based on myths"
"superstition"
"fabricated"
"invented".

But you didn't know that, did you?


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
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.

Earl Doherty explains it in detail.
But you refuse to even LOOK at it.

Then you claim there is NO explanation!
How incredibly DISHONEST!


K.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

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

Right. You admitted that they recognized his writings as being from the 1st century, not before.

There are no writings from when Jesus was alive. None at all. No contemporary writings or witnesses. Only alleged hearsays.

reply to post by Kapyong

Earl Doherty explains it in detail. But you refuse to even LOOK at it.

I did and I still not convinced.

reply to post by Kapyong

Because no-one actually heard the Jesus of Nazareth story until early-mid 2nd century

You sir are grossly misinformed. Do you realize we have a fragment of the Gospel of John dated to 125 AD by even the most critical scholars. And John is unanimously accepted as the last Gospel.

John Ryland Papyrus

I suggest you examine your motives.




[edit on 5/2/2010 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Deaf Alien



Jesus lived in the first century. First century is contemporaneous. Do you expect newspaper headlines? You realize most people were illiterate then? Seriously you are being unreasonable.

Based on your unreasonable standard you can throw away most all of ancient history. By historical standards the accounts of Jesus are some of the most contemporaneous and well sourced in all of ancient history. If you want to disbelieve I'm sure you can always come up with an excuse, but the facts simply do not support your denial.



[edit on 5/2/2010 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I suggest that you consider the motives of the people who wrote the Bible, and took the spiritual force that almost every religion at that time believed was inside every single person and placed it in Jesus Christ alone.

It may seem crass to suggest, but maybe the writers were paid, maybe they were ill informed, maybe they were biased. Maybe what they wrote they knew to be untrue, and yet wrote it anyway. Maybe they believed what they wrote, but that does not make it true.

We are talking 2000 years ago. No one really knows why or when they wrote it. We cannot interview them and we cannot take their words as fact. We must keep in mind that keeping historical and true records were not their primary concern when writing the Bible. It was power, politically and spiritually.

As a child I always wondered what was happening at other places not anywhere close geographically to where the Bible was written. I wondered if they knew of Jesus. It seems they did not. And honestly, they way I was taught it, no one even mentioned that there were other people, say in North America or South America, Australia, or elsewhere at THE SAME TIME that Jesus was around. No one even mentions these things. I honestly used to think when I was younger that there were no people in those places at that time. How very very wrong and mislead was I. And yet I acted on those beliefs for a while as if they were true.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

You realize most people were illiterate then?

Do you realize that the concept of jews and romans being illiterate back then is a myth?

How else can the Jews read and interpret the Torah? And roman people were very well educated back then.

Yet another "history" myth busted.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

You realize most people were illiterate then?

Do you realize that the concept of jews and romans being illiterate back then is a myth?

How else can the Jews read and interpret the Torah? And roman people were very well educated back then.

Yet another "history" myth busted.

I meant the common people... there weren't a lot written materials as compared to today. Books did not even exist yet. Again first century is contemporaneous so your objections are not reasonable. We would have to discard most all of ancient history based on your standard there there must be a written source in the life time of the figure. So.. Alexander the Great didn't exist... Julius Ceasar... myth. It's a false standard that no one uses for anything else except Jesus.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Books did not even exist yet?!?!?! Can you please source this?

Alexander the Great didn't exist

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1bef2efb76cf.jpg[/atsimg]

There are evidence for those people.

Look. You can debate all day about whether or not Jesus existed. The fact remains that there are NO contemporary evidence for Jesus except for hearsay. I am not saying that Jesus didn't exist. What I am saying that you can not prove it. See what I did above? I proved that Alexander the Great existed.

My objections are not unreasonable.

I think the OP has a valid point. Christianity is a conspiracy just like other major religions.

reply to post by worlds_away


Printed books as we know them did not exist until 1440CE with the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg . Until then only hand written manuscripts or codex's were available and were too expensive for the common man to possess.

reply to post by jagdflieger


I am obviously not talking about books as we would recognize a book today, bound and printed. Are you trying to tell me that no one nowhere compiled writings before the Bible?

reply to post by worlds_away


No, only that before the printing press, manuscripts were rare (since all copies were hand written) and since they were labour intensive, quite expensive. Only the rich could afford to have a private copy of a manuscript (or book). Normally they were kept in libraries. Therefore it was possible for only 4 or 5 copies of a particular document to exist at any one time. Even Paul who started out being wealthy would probably not have a private copy of the Torah. He went to the local temple.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Books did not even exist yet.

Huh? What about the Egyptian Book of the Dead (just to cite one of many examples)?

What did you think those rabbis were reading from? The scrolls of Torah!

Don't fool yourself.

reply to post by jagdflieger


And I will leave you here. You have still not answered the questions you first posed and I will not hold my breath for them.

Good luck in your quest for truth, if that is what you are sincerely after.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by worlds_away]

Oh I forgot to mention the Library of Alexandria.

Your argument is invalid.