It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Early Christian Conspiracy - How Was It Done?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


So what?
Belief proves nothing.
Why do you think it does?

Many people to this day strongly believe in faeries.
Is that evidence for faeries?



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


Gandalf willingly sacrificed himself for a fictional group (the Fellowship of the Ring.)

For the same reason your "martyrs" gave their lives - to make the STORY seem better.

Much later - there WERE actual Christian martyrs - so what?
Every religion has martyrs.

Real Islamic suicide bombers willingly give their lives for their beliefs.
The Jim Jones cult did too.
So did Heaven's Gate cult.

According to YOUR argument, all those beliefs were true.
You argument is worthless.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This is important in that it debunks the idea that they just made it up. People do not give their lives for a lie.


No-one EVER said they "died for a lie".
This is Christian strawman that is always brought up, even though NO-ONE EVER SAID THAT. Will that stop you? No way. You will keep on bringing up this "die for a lie" nonsense, but you will never notice that no-one is saying that.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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).


You just did it AGAIN !

That's not a fact - it's part of the STORY.
You are actually using part of the Gospel story to prove the Gospel story is true.
Incredible.

The FACT that Sauron attacked Gondor PROVES that Gondor is a real place - how could a mythical place be attacked by a huge army ?

That's what your argument sounds like, Bigwhammy.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This is also recorded in extra-biblical writings by Justin Martyr and Tertullian who were early apologists.


Faithful Christians who preached one and half CENTURIES later?!
Hahahahahaha.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Finally, the fact that women are listed as the discoverers of the empty tomb speaks to veracity.


*Yawn*
Did it again.

That's not a fact - it's part of the SAME STORY.

Mate - we aren't in CHURCH now!
You can't preach the Gospel stories as "facts" that prove the Gospel stories.

Wake up, Jeff.



K.




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Legendary embellishment takes time to evolve,


Wrong again.
This is another false fact that Christians preach.

In fact myths and legends grow even while real people are alive - such as Sabatai Sevi - myths about him spread as he travelled, he had his followers actively debunking his miracles - but people still BELIEVED even when the person himself said the miracles were not true.

Anyway -
Christian legends had many DECADES to grow.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


Paul quotes a religious creed about a spiritual being who was crucified in heaven.

Does the creed say WHERE it happend?
No.
Does the creed say WHEN it happend?
No.

The creed gives NO details to place it anywhere in history.
So the creed could have been forming for WHO KNOWS who long before Paul. You don't seem to grasp that.

If there WAS NO Jesus, then there WAS NO short period at all.




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


No they are not.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this faithful belief.

They are not facts.
They are faithful beliefs.
Which is why the Gospels are found under RELIGION, not HISTORY.


K.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Paul and James were skeptics.


Elrond was sceptical of what Aragorn could achieve!
Aragorn is REAL!
Wake up, Jeff.

This is part of the STORY!

The sceptical stories are found in Acts - which is almost complete fantasy.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Did James and Paul have the same hallucination or vision?


According to Paul they did.
People have all sorts of different visionsof Jesis to this day - SO WHAT?!




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


Wrong again.
Fatima is a perfect example.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The disciples report space time physical events like Jesus eating fish in John 21 and Thomas touching Jesus wounds (Jn. 20:27).


Elrond actually healed Frodo's wounds.
So Frodo is REAL !




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


If Jesus was a spirit seen in visions, there WAS NO BODY in the 1st place !
Wake up, Jeff.

Why haven't people produced the body of Saruman to show he is fictional?
The failure of anyone to produce the body of Saruman shows he must be real.

Wake up, Jeff.



K.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy


Paul never mentions the empty tomb,


The creed in 1 Cor. 15 infers the empty tomb.


You mean "imply".
But it does not imply it a all.
It doesn't even MENTION the word "tomb" at all.

Paul does NOT once mention the empty tomb.

No Christian author mentions the empty tomb until early-mid 2nd century, a CENTURY after the alleged empty tomb event.

Got that?
No Christian outside the Gospels even knew about the empty tomb story till a century after it allegedely happened.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Plus, the crucifixion took place on the outskirts of Jerusalem, the same location as the rapid spread of the Christian faith.


Paul never says that.
Nor do the early epistles.

No Christian mentions WHERE Jesus was crucified until a century or so after the alleged event.

Paul travels to Jerusalem and makes NO MENTION that it happened there at all.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


There was no tomb, and no body.
It's just a STORY.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


THERE WAS NO JEWISH CLAIM THAT THE DISCIPLES STOLE THE BODY !!!!
Wake up, Jeff !!!

This is just PART of the Christian STORY !
No Jew ever said that.

K.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
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.


Krishna alleged date varies by THOUSANDS of years.

They are all myths jagd -

Krishna
Gautama Buddha
Zoroaster
Moses
Lao Tsu
Confucius
Jesus
etc. etc.

All myths.
No contemporary evidence.
Just LEGENDS from long after wards.

Heck - if you go with the silly 3100 BC date for Krishna, then your evidence for him is THOUSANDS of years after his alleged time.

Do you believe the Hindu deep time stuff ?
That earth has been inhabited for vast billions of eons?


K.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No in chapter 15 of 1 Cor. we have an early creed that dates within a few years of the crucifixion


But only IF YOU ASSUME the crucixifion happned !
Which is what you are trying to prove.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
including the appearance to James who assumed Jesus was crazy


Sauron appeared to Pippin.
He was changed by that experience.

Only a REAL experince could change Pippin so much
Sauron is REAL !

Wake up, Jeff.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
And Paul clearly speaks of and argues for literal bodily resurrection. It's pretty must the thrust of the whole chapter.


You must be joking?

He clearly says it's a SPIRITUAL BODY.

He clearly says Christ became a LIFE GIVING SPIRIT.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
We have multiple believers and 2 known skeptic predisposed to disbelieve. Visions just don't account for the data.


Aragorn attracted THOUSANDS of followers, even Elrond and Theoden King, who were sceptical. Aragorn MUST be REAL !

Wake up, Jeff!



K.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
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.


You looked at it for a few minutes.

You are not the slightest bit interested in learning what the Jesus Myth theory says - that's how YOU STARTED this thread, remember?

(Look - it's OK to take a view an argue - I just think you went a bit skew from the start :-)

You are here to argue AGAINST the silly "Jesus Conspiracy Theory", when almost no-one argues it.

But there are a few, as you found with 5 seconds research using Google for "Christ Conspiracy". AcharyaS is the main proponent of the Jesus was a solr myth theory, like Attis, Osiris etc. She has a large following. If I may mellow a bit Jagd - have a look at AcharyaS's crap and start a thread criticising that - you will almost certainly get a bit there, as she has so many followers, and I think you will succesfully be able to argue against it. I think you are actually interested in these subjest and my rude aggresion has probably spoiled it a bit.


There are some others -
Carotta has real Jesus Conspiracy Theory that Jesus was based on Caesar (no-one believes that one.)

So does Jospeh Atwill - I have no idea if they share the same conspiracy theory.

And there is a Piso family theory, that the Gospels were forged by the conspiring Piso family.

And there is a conspiracy theory pushed by some German guy that involved Ignatius or something.


But anyway -
As you have seen - I just wanted to make ONE POINT clear - the mainstream Jesus Myth theories of the day are not conspiracy theories meaning a prior argreement to fool poeple.


And my sub-point is this :
Jesus conspiracy theories are stupid crackpottery and nonsense.
But Earl Doherty's thesis is a consistent, plausible, well-argued, detailed and believable case for Jesus being a myth - without the slightest wiff of a conspiracy.


I would at least suggest you read the 12 easy pieces - that will give you a fair idea of the argument in 15 minutes or so.

THEN perhaps you may be inspired to argue against Earl's theory - many do :-) But at least you'll know WHAT he says.

Good luck.


Kapyong



[edit on 3-5-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.



Ah, the famous P52.

Firstly - anyone who dates a (manuscript) MSS to a single year is wrong.
Just plain wrong.

MSS can only be dated to within a range of years (unless we have a very rare case that mentions the year of writing) typically a CENTURY, or sometimes 50 years in other examples can be found.

So, P52 is NOT dated to 125 AD.

It has been dated by one scholar to c.125 (+/-25)
i.e. 100-150 AD.

But that's just ONE opinion (because that's what a dating is, an expert opinion, and it's always the ONE opinion that believers quote - because it's the earliest.


Secondly -
What Bigwhammy doesn't say is that various other experts have dated it to other periods :
* 100-199
* 145-195 recently by Schmidt
* up to late 2nd

But believers make it sound like it has "125AD" stamped on it, when in fact it could be a almost CENTURY LATER.

Yet another false claim that means nothing.

en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
And John is unanimously accepted as the last Gospel.


Yep, and here we have a manuscript that could be as late as late 2nd C.
Worthless for showing ANYTHING about Jesus.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I suggest you examine your motives.


My MOTIVES ?

My motives are clear - I am here to post the facts in response to your faithful claims and distortions and inaccuracies and errors.

So far I've shown nearly all your claims are false.

What exactly are YOUR motives in posting false information?

Will you be CHECKING the facts about P52 and admitting you were mistaken?

It's OK if you heard from someone and trusted them - that happens.

The test of a person is how they respond when shown to be wrong.

How will you respond?


K.


[edit on 3-5-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Jesus lived in the first century. First century is contemporaneous.


No it isn't.
Contemporary means "at the same time".

No-one alive at the same time as Jesus recorded him.
And there a few who should have :

WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

PHILO

Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.

Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.

If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.

Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5



WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

SENECA

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.

In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.

How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4


PLUTARCH

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.

Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.

If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4



JUSTUS

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3


K.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I meant the common people... there weren't a lot written materials as compared to today.
Books did not even exist yet.


Oh dear oh dear :-(



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

No-one alive at the same time as Jesus recorded him.


John 21:24

It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

This disciple refers the unnamed "Beloved Disciple," who is described elsewhere in John as having been alive at the same time as Jesus.

Now, you can believe that bolded sentence or not, as you wish. But the most we could possibly have is some early writing that says somebody who knew Jesus wrote something down. And we have that.

Given that the claim has been made, you're not entitled to assert the contrary as if it were an established fact. The matter is unresolved, a situation likely to persist.


And there a few who should have :

Why would anybody who didn't write about John the Baptist write about one of his disciples?

The one and only non-Gospel source for John is Josephus, who didn't write about Jesus (resolving any controversy about the apparent interpolation favorably to you).

How much does that really buy you? What would Josephus have written? Footnote: after John's death, a small cadre of traveling disciples continued preaching until their leader was also killed.

The gospels are unanimous that Jesus's mission was launched after he had established a relationship with John. John baptized Jesus, and not vice versa. Jesus' keenest fans might think he was an even bigger deal than John was, but there is no reason to think that any impartial observer would agree with them.

I think mentions of John the Baptist furnish a reasonable benchmark for the expected frequency of Jesus-mentions. You even win on that criterion: next to nothing beats nothing at all, fair and square.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by eight bits

No-one alive at the same time as Jesus recorded him.

John 21:24

It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

This disciple refers the unnamed "Beloved Disciple," who is described elsewhere in John as having been alive at the same time as Jesus.

Now, you can believe that bolded sentence or not, as you wish. But the most we could possibly have is some early writing that says somebody who knew Jesus wrote something down. And we have that.




Originally posted by eight bits
Given that the claim has been made, you're not entitled to assert the contrary as if it were an established fact. The matter is unresolved, a situation likely to persist.


Oh please - a 3rd party, unknown to history, CLAIMS the books is written by someone who met Jesus?

So what?

It's clearly false, as the book of John is obviously copied from earlier Gospels, and was written long long after the alleged events.

It's not evidence for Jesus at all.

It's evidence of LATER Christians making things up to support their faith.


K.


[edit on 3-5-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Oh please - a 3rd party, unknown to history, CLAIMS the books is written by someone who met Jesus?

So what?

As I said, you have gotten as much as you could possibly have gotten. You can take it or leave it, but nobody knows by natural means whether that sentence of John is truthful or untruthful, because no living person can know. That includes you.


It's clearly false, as the book of John is obviously copied from earlier Gospels,...

No, John's not a synoptic gospel.

The mutual dependence you are alluding to concerns Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and only them. John stands apart. In fact, when it is convenient for the atheists to do so, they point out how many problems John presents for those who claim that all four gospels are equally reliable.

You guys need to get your story straight. Thank God I'm an agnostic.


... and was written long long after the alleged events.

To borrow your catchphrase, so what? The passage I quoted doesn't claim that John was written by the Beloved Disciple, but only that John's fact claims are based on writings by that person. It's not news that John itself was first released to the public late in the First or early in the Second Century.

Analogously, we are apparently about to see several volumes of previously unpublished material, allegedly written by the late J.D. Salinger. So, are to we assume that the publishers and editors are lying about his having written it, since this material will not appear until after his death, in the century following his period of public activity?

No, it is Salinger's death that makes the material available to us. Authors have many reasons for holding material back. If I were the "Beloved Disciple," and I contradicted so much of the Apostolic party line as John does, in such inflammatory ways, then I probably would have held the manuscipt back until I was dead, too.

There is the additional complication that the Beloved Disciple may well have believed that Jesus would return before he died. That might have attenuated his motivation to pick a fight. The only way he could know that he was waiting too long was to die waiting.

In any case, John's claim is what it is, and the question cannot be resolved, contrary to your claim that it has already been resolved in your favor.


It's not evidence for Jesus at all.

It's evidence of LATER Christians making things up to support their faith.

Really? Not just later Christians but LATER ones. I didn't realize that.

But it is testimonial evidence. We would all prefer disinterested testimony. Too bad, we don't have any. Opinions differ about whether we should have any more than we do, as you and I have already discussed.

I think that just about exhausts what we have to say to one another in this thread. Thank you for reading and sharing your views.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 

Explain to me how you know what God I believe in or don't believe in. I don't recall ever stating it.
This country does not now nor has it ever had a Christian army. That is against the constitution.
Name one war we,the U.S.,have declared war and fought in the name of God.

"No wars were ever fought in the name of not God"
I believe these are secular wars. You know the ones I named and the ones that happen the most throughout history. Rome,Persia,Egypt,Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun and on and on it goes. They didn't fight for God they fought for power for themselves.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jagdflieger
 


At least one of Paul's writings (Galatians) pre-dates the earliest gospel, Mark, by about 20 years. It was written sometime in the late 40s. What's interesting about the Pauline literature is that there already seemed to be communities that Paul ministered to which considered Jesus to be divine. The most important question we must ask, then, is what these earliest communities really believed. I think the Gospel of Philip, a Nag Hammadi document, is also of great importance as many scholars believe it may have been the first gospel written.

My opinion, after reading quite a bit on this subject, is that Jesus was a teacher in a priestly line (or considered to be), and affiliated with the Qumran community. He was probably seen as the Messiah (after a struggle for that title with John the Baptist, his brother James, or both), but probably not seen as divine in any god-identified way.I do not believe he died on the cross, but that he appeared to do so because of the mixture of vinegar and gall (snake poison) that was given to him. He and his closest disciples knew the trick they were playing - actually an initiatory mystery religion most probably derived from Egyptian mythology (i.e. the dying and rising god).

Some of his followers who saw him after his "resurrection" thought he had literally died and risen again, word spread, and communities were formed. After Paul's ecstatic vision on the road to Damascus, he found these communities, ministered to them, and began to spread their message of Jesus as divine.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by rick1
"No wars were ever fought in the name of not God"
I believe these are secular wars.


Yes, which has NOTHING to do with being fought in the name of atheism.
NOTHING what-so-ever.

NO WAR was EVER fought in the name of atheism.
Ever.

But many, many wars have been fought, and are STILL fought, in the name of God and religion.

Religion often CAUSES wars.
Atheism has NEVER EVER done so.


Pointing to a war that merely INVOLVED atheists is like saying Stalin and Hitler fought wars in the name of BLACK HAIR.



K.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by eight bits

Oh please - a 3rd party, unknown to history, CLAIMS the books is written by someone who met Jesus?

So what?

As I said, you have gotten as much as you could possibly have gotten. You can take it or leave it, but nobody knows by natural means whether that sentence of John is truthful or untruthful, because no living person can know. That includes you.


How incredibly silly.
It's a clearly forged statement added to a Gospel.
The issue is that it's a clear FORGERY, an ADDITION by some UNKNOWN person.

Saying it "might be true" is absolutely ridiculous.
Such is Christian apologetics.

Claims to have met aliens "might be true".
Claims to have met faeries "might be true".
Claims to have met Krishna "might be true".

Great argument there.


K.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by satanictemple
reply to post by jagdflieger
 


At least one of Paul's writings (Galatians) pre-dates the earliest gospel, Mark, by about 20 years. It was written sometime in the late 40s. What's interesting about the Pauline literature is that there already seemed to be communities that Paul ministered to which considered Jesus to be divine. The most important question we must ask, then, is what these earliest communities really believed. I think the Gospel of Philip, a Nag Hammadi document, is also of great importance as many scholars believe it may have been the first gospel written.


Paul says nothing about a historical Jesus :
* no Jerusalem
* no miracles, no healing, no Lazarus
* no birth stories, no Bethlehem, no Nazarath
* no place or date at all.



Originally posted by satanictemple
My opinion, after reading quite a bit on this subject, is that Jesus was a teacher in a priestly line (or considered to be), and affiliated with the Qumran community.


Whoa!

You skipped from Paul's statements to YOUR opinions which have nothing to do with Paul's comments.


K.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Great argument there.

Thank you so much for saying so. I enjoyed reading your perspective as well.

'Til next time.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join