A Massive Conspiracy Theory?

[systemstrike_7]

So what we have is a book that claims to be the word of God, 100% true and makes man look bad? Doesn't' sound like a conspiracy to me.

Yeah, the writers sure didn't exalt themselves at all, did they? Even the kings who wrote didn't do so.

I had another thought about the Bible having been written in three languages. So not only by many men spanning many generations, there were three languages as well. It just gets more and more complex a conspiracy all the time, doesn't it?

And I believe I already explained this. They could have had man fall, to justify their own faults. "Nobody is perfect" is a pretty good cop out from having to be perfect.

[artsylady]

Oh great, now my quote button is not working at all. Sorry if this looks a mess. If you read carefully Systemstrike, you'll see where I've answered your questions.

you think it was the writers of the gospel (like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul who was a killing killing Roman, etc) who started the conspiracy? I mean the Christian or the latter half of the massive conspiracy theory?

Ok, geez. Its not a freaking conspiracy theory or anything. It isn't an elaborate hoax. They are merely myths of a certain people. You never even answered my question. So please, try again.

I did answer your question below but I'll try to give you some more details if that's what you need.

Not merely myths. If Jesus wasn't the son of God, then there were a lot of people who beleived he was, right? But not only that, if he wasn't the son of God, then he probably didn't perform any miracles and was never ressurected correct? If he wasn't resurrected, then there were many who fabricated a huge lie about this event, right? If he wasn't born of a virgin, then there are a lot of others perpetrating yet another elaborate lie to make Jesus out to be the son of God. If you don't think all of these people beleived they were telling the truth (and most of them were witnesses to some of these events) then you must beleive it is some sort of elaborate hoax.

To further make my point, just like I said in another post, I don't beleive that Islam is a conspiracy. I do believe Mohammed was visited by some sort of entity and really beleived that he was writing down the words of God. He told followers that the earlier parts of scripture had been tainted because the writings didn't fit with what he had been told by the 'entitity'. And then he and his followers went out and gained followers by force. Not much to it really. Only one man was truly deceived and the rest followed suit in fear of their life.

QUOTE

Caesar Augustus while Quirinius was governing Syria. And why? Same reason why the government wants to know everything about us today. Money. Taxes. Hard to believe I know.

Once again, you failed to answer my objection. Why would they make the person go back to their ancient ancestors birth place? There is no good reason for this. They could have much easily just taken the census with the people staying in the town they lived. Please stop breaking up my posts and answering questions out of context.

d

QUOTE

I'm sorry if I failed to answer that particular question. I guess I figured you'd see the logic in having all of the people go to one location to be counted and taxed, rather than census workers travelling all over the place, especially given the fact that so many people were nomadic back then.

If you really beleive it would be more efficient to send workers out to count the people then tell me why you think so because I disagree.

He didn't have mail or phones back then to do the census. And we know from the historian Josephus Flavius that Quirinius also later had a census. That's the beauty of archaeology once again. Thank God Israel took back the nation so that in the last days all of this could be dug up! Of course, that was part of his plan.... And of course, the prophesies made it clear that this would happen.

What? How does this change my objection? He still had them make a stupid journey across who knows how many miles just to take the census in a different location, than if they would have just stayed in the town they lived. The soldiers still had to go from town to town, no matter where they put the people. It would have been more logical to cram everyone into a barn and then count them, than to make EVERYONE travel to the land of their ancestors birth. And yes, Quirinius did have another census, but did he do it in the same fashion?

I'm not sure what country you live in but in my country, no matter what the government wants from me, I have to go to them to get it done. If I don't get my driver's licence renewed or do my taxes, I can't very well use the excuse, 'Well they didn't come to my door!" ANd I would imagine when Quiriius had the other census he would have done it in the same fashion because it's the most logical.

QUOTE

those chosen people would carefully guard the scriptures and later bring us a saviour from the line of David. They did a pretty good job, you'd have to admit, right? I mean, even if you don't beleive in Jesus as the Saviour, you do realize that the Jewish people did do a remarkable job of preserving the books. You should look sometime at the attempts to exterminate the books by various leaders as well as of course, various attempts throughout history to exterminate the Jews. It's amazing they are still living at all. I would say God chose them wisely.

But this brings up the question of why did God make a saviour necessary?

You're funny. I answer your question about the Jews and you make up a new question almost completely unrelated. Anyway, do you agree now that if God is alive and he chose the Jews, that he made a good choice?

What if God made everyone his chosen people? That would be a little more fair wouldn't it? The Tanakh is a Jewish creation and it is heavily biased in the Jewish direction. What if God treated everyone as He did the Jews? I bet alot of people would have been saved from hell. It doesn't make any sense.

"Everyone" didn't WANT to be chosen by God. "Everyone" ignored him!

God DID create everyone as equals. The Jews were the only ones who wanted to follow Him and His commands and at times, even they needed discipline.

A

a virgin or miraculous birth was common among the mystery religions of the time. And as I said before, it isn't a conspiracy theory. Not once did I ever say it was. You took many of my posts and answered them out of context thinking you were doing something productive. Well, I hate to say, but your replies didn't add up.

And about the women witnessing the empty tomb, the original ending to Mark's gospel stops after saying, "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Interesting, no?

Virgin birth stories were 'common'?? I wouldn't have used that word at all. The only question I didn't answer was the one about 'why didn't they travel all over the place and get the data from the people where they were"? Everything else I've answered.

You might want to read Mark again. After Mary Magdeline saw Jesus she did go and tell the apostles.

[systemstrike_7]

I did answer your question below but I'll try to give you some more details if that's what you need.

Not merely myths. If Jesus wasn't the son of God, then there were a lot of people who beleived he was, right? But not only that, if he wasn't the son of God, then he probably didn't perform any miracles and was never ressurected correct? If he wasn't resurrected, then there were many who fabricated a huge lie about this event, right? If he wasn't born of a virgin, then there are a lot of others perpetrating yet another elaborate lie to make Jesus out to be the son of God. If you don't think all of these people beleived they were telling the truth (and most of them were witnesses to some of these events) then you must beleive it is some sort of elaborate hoax.

To further make my point, just like I said in another post, I don't beleive that Islam is a conspiracy. I do believe Mohammed was visited by some sort of entity and really beleived that he was writing down the words of God. He told followers that the earlier parts of scripture had been tainted because the writings didn't fit with what he had been told by the 'entitity'. And then he and his followers went out and gained followers by force. Not much to it really. Only one man was truly deceived and the rest followed suit in fear of their life.

I'm trying to make the point that Jesus' story as portrayed in the gospels are a literary invention meant to be allegorical. We never hear of a mention of the gospels until the mid 2nd century. I would argue that the early Christians thought Jesus was merely a 'mystical' god. They made the gospels, meaning only to be used as allegorical "teaching lessons" if you will. I'm guessing that the early Christians never believed that these miraculous things were actually done on earth. I do not think that this would be an elaborate hoax, but that later Christians took the gospels seriously, which was not intended by the authors.

I'm sorry if I failed to answer that particular question. I guess I figured you'd see the logic in having all of the people go to one location to be counted and taxed, rather than census workers travelling all over the place, especially given the fact that so many people were nomadic back then.

If you really beleive it would be more efficient to send workers out to count the people then tell me why you think so because I disagree.

All the people didn't go to one location as you stated. Each person went to a different location, the location of an ancient ancestor's birthplace. They still taxed these people, even before the census, so they would not need everyone to travel many miles to a different location.

I'm not sure what country you live in but in my country, no matter what the government wants from me, I have to go to them to get it done. If I don't get my driver's licence renewed or do my taxes, I can't very well use the excuse, 'Well they didn't come to my door!" ANd I would imagine when Quiriius had the other census he would have done it in the same fashion because it's the most logical.

The people never went to the government, just to a different city that was already occupied by the regular inhabitants. The officers would have still gone too make the census, the only thing that changes is the fact that the people were in a different location. And having that many people travelling at once would have caused mass chaos. And most people wouldn't be able to afford that kind of trip, and a pregnant woman probably couldn't have made the trip very easily either. This isn't logical. It would be more logical to cram everyone in Jerusalem, or better yet, keep everyone in the town they LIVE in.

You're funny. I answer your question about the Jews and you make up a new question almost completely unrelated. Anyway, do you agree now that if God is alive and he chose the Jews, that he made a good choice?

Thank you, I try. I do not agree that he made a good choice. He could have chosen anyone, and if he would have revealed himself to a different people the same way he revealed himself to the Jews, I'm sure that those people would have been just as obedient.

[quote

"Everyone" didn't WANT to be chosen by God. "Everyone" ignored him!

God DID create everyone as equals. The Jews were the only ones who wanted to follow Him and His commands and at times, even they needed discipline.

[artsylady]

Okay, so it's not just my quote buttons that aren't working anymore.

I'm trying to make the point that Jesus' story as portrayed in the gospels are a literary invention meant to be allegorical. We never hear of a mention of the gospels until the mid 2nd century. I would argue that the early Christians thought Jesus was merely a 'mystical' god. They made the gospels, meaning only to be used as allegorical "teaching lessons" if you will. I'm guessing that the early Christians never believed that these miraculous things were actually done on earth. I do not think that this would be an elaborate hoax, but that later Christians took the gospels seriously, which was not intended by the authors.

Where are you getting your infomration from? There is much evidence to support that Jesus Christ lived, had followers and many Christians were killed during this time period. When you read the gospels, you honestly don't think they were writing literally? They quote Jesus and everything. You're trying to rewrite history here, which is a tough task because it's a very well documented history at that.

If you're truly a seeker, you'll take a look at the works of Simon Greenleaf, who was the Royale Professor of EVIDENCE at Harvard. When his students posed a question "Who was Jesus" to him, he went looking. Based on EVIDENCE, he became a Christian, believing Jesus to be the son of God.

You seem to have a serious problem with some things that I don't understand why they would be a problem at all. If it didn't work the way the Bible describes it, then tell me what you think a more efficient way of doing the census would have been, given the era. You say there would have been mass chaos? LIke what exactly? Besides no rooms at any inns?

On one hand you say it would mass chaos for everyone to go to the city of their birth (or whatever) yet you say it would be more effective if everyone would have crammed in Jerusalem? You never cease to amaze me.

You're funny. I answer your question about the Jews and you make up a new question almost completely unrelated. Anyway, do you agree now that if God is alive and he chose the Jews, that he made a good choice?

Thank you, I try. I do not agree that he made a good choice.

He could have chosen anyone

like the Egyptians (we know how well they listen to God) or the philistines or the canaanites. Right, I see.

and if he would have revealed himself to a different people the same way he revealed himself to the Jews, I'm sure that those people would have been just as obedient.

Perhaps its not that he didn't reveal himself to others. Its' more that He did but only a few chose to revere him. Think Noah, Abraham, Lot etc.

So you say God did not do a good job in choosing the Jews. Why were they not a good choice? They acheived everything necessary to bring the world and the saviour to all so that everyone can be saved. Not bad eh?

[quote

"Everyone" didn't WANT to be chosen by God. "Everyone" ignored him!

God DID create everyone as equals. The Jews were the only ones who wanted to follow Him and His commands and at times, even they needed discipline.

Not everyone got the same treatment according to the OT. If God would have done the same for the Amakelites as he did for the Jews, I believe things would have been much different. But this cannot be since the Jews wrote the OT. They wanted to be the chosen people, so they wrote it as such.

Well where are the Amakelites today? They could have become Jewish as well. Jews are not necessarily a race you know. They were just the most consistant observers and followers of God.

I suppose you think they have some sort of 'hero complex' or something? You should read the scriptures then and try to then figure out why indivudual would say they were 'worm-like' compared to God and such. Honestly, none of the writers really have this ego that you think they do. And as far as them making the Jews look perfect you really do need to read the books. They too were often rebellious throughout history. Many times, it was one faithful man or woman who turned them around again and again. Or God continually having to prove himself to them again.

Virgin birth stories were 'common'?? I wouldn't have used that word at all. The only question I didn't answer was the one about 'why didn't they travel all over the place and get the data from the people where they were"? Everything else I've answered.

You might want to read Mark again. After Mary Magdeline saw Jesus she did go and tell the apostles.

I said MIRACULOUS and virgin birth stories were common. Virgin births were less common, but miraculous births were attributed to every single savior God of the time. It was a common characteristic of the hero story.

/quote]

Jesus and John are examples of miraculous births I suppose. Name a few more virgin births, accompanied by angelic visits, visitors from other countries who followed a sign in the sky, combined with prophesies that surround them, followers who died for the beliefs and a religion that lives on and I might further consider further your point. I can just imagine throughout history why a woman might say she was a virgin if she was pregnant, but this story has a lot more going on that just that.

Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition made by scribes. The earliest manuscripts do not include the post resurrection sightings. You should read the footnote in your bible if it is a fairly new one. Even Christian scholars agree that this passage should not be included in Mark. If you notice, after verse 8 it introduces Mary Magdalene as if we had never heard of her before. But we know that isn't the case. The writing style is also different. So my case stands. As I said the ORIGINAL ending of Mark ends with, "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Interesting. I didn't know there was a controversy about that. I'll try to find time later to examine this.

[systemstrike_7]

Ok, Artsyladay, I'm done with you. After reading this post I see that you will keep changing my words and using the changed words to your advantage. That is very childish. And quite sickening. You are obviously not even going to consider my arguments. You will merely put in a few of these: And think that you win the argument because you were able to laugh at me. You kept repeating yourself and this argument is now going in circles.

I never once said that Jesus never lived. I merely stated this his true life could have been easily disrupted by oral tradition and certain theological agendas. I mean, look at how the Virgin Mary got so close to diety? They catholics made up a story about how she ascended to heaven such as Jesus did just to help their agenda. Could this not have been done back in those times? If not more so? Just because one person comes to Christ through their personal search of the "evidence" doesn't mean your religion is true. I believe that the age of reason is coming quickly and strongly. Many more people are opening their eyes and realizing that not everything in life is as black and white as the bible tells us.

I'm done arguing with you, because you are taking things out of context, and even changing my very words, and I believe this is unacceptable.

I'm done with this thread, if a moderator would like to close it, then I encourage her/him to do so.

[systemstrike_7]

Jesus and John are examples of miraculous births I suppose. Name a few more virgin births, accompanied by angelic visits, visitors from other countries who followed a sign in the sky, combined with prophesies that surround them, followers who died for the beliefs and a religion that lives on and I might further consider further your point. I can just imagine throughout history why a woman might say she was a virgin if she was pregnant, but this story has a lot more going on that just that.

Mithra, Dionysius, Osiris, Caesar, and the list goes on... As to the part about the religions still being strong today, well not all of the pagan religions can be believed at once, so the Jesus one came out on top. The beliefs were all to closely related for them all to be believable. I think the only reason Christianity flourished was because Constantine made it the state religion. He made people believe in it, so it naturally got popular.

[artsylady]

Artsyladay, I'm done with you. After reading this post I see that you will keep changing my words and using the changed words to your advantage. That is very childish. And quite sickening. You are obviously not even going to consider my arguments. You will merely put in a few of these: And think that you win the argument because you were able to laugh at me. You kept repeating yourself and this argument is now going in circles.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I too feel that we are going in circles.

But please show me where I'm twisting your words. I've re-read the entire thread and don't see it but I will apologize in advance for that.

I never once said that Jesus never lived. I merely stated this his true life could have been easily disrupted by oral tradition and certain theological agendas. I mean, look at how the Virgin Mary got so close to diety? They catholics made up a story about how she ascended to heaven such as Jesus did just to help their agenda. Could this not have been done back in those times? If not more so? Just because one person comes to Christ through their personal search of the "evidence" doesn't mean your religion is true. I believe that the age of reason is coming quickly and strongly. Many more people are opening their eyes and realizing that not everything in life is as black and white as the bible tells us.

You said this:

(I'll quote just to make sure you don't beleive I'm twisting your words.)

"I'm trying to make the point that Jesus' story as portrayed in the gospels are a literary invention meant to be allegorical. We never hear of a mention of the gospels until the mid 2nd century. I would argue that the early Christians thought Jesus was merely a 'mystical' god. They made the gospels, meaning only to be used as allegorical "teaching lessons" if you will. I'm guessing that the early Christians never believed that these miraculous things were actually done on earth. "

And I answered you based on what you'd said. Have you considered reading Simon Greenleaf and learning what evidence was strong enough to sway him into Christiainity?

[artsylady]

My original question was this.

Name a few more virgin births, accompanied by angelic visits, visitors from other countries who followed a sign in the sky, combined with prophesies that surround them, followers who died for the beliefs and a religion that lives on and I might further consider further your point. I can just imagine throughout history why a woman might say she was a virgin if she was pregnant, but this story has a lot more going on that just that.

And your answer was this:

Mithra , Dionysius, Osiris, Caesar, and the list goes on...

Really? Mithra, Dionysius, Oriris, Caear and more were accompanied by angelic visits, signs in the sky and prophesies, followers who died for the beliefs? And these religions still live on?

I'm sorry if you think I"m twisting your words. I really don't beleive I'm doing that. I'm merely asking the question again based upon your answer because I think your answer deserves more explanation.

As to the part about the religions still being strong today, well not all of the pagan religions can be believed at once, so the Jesus one came out on top. The beliefs were all to closely related for them all to be believable. I think the only reason Christianity flourished was because Constantine made it the state religion. He made people believe in it, so it naturally got popular.

I think Constantine made it a 'state religion' because he saw the fervor of the people and despite all of the killing it continued. I think he probably had a 'if you can't beat 'em join 'em' attitude and wanted to harness control.

So do you honestly not beleive that the early Christians suffered much torture and death shortly after Jesus ascention?

[forrestkc]

As a Christian myself, I would say this defense of scripture that started this thread is highly flawed. Much of the Pentateuch is metaphorical from a historical and scientific point of view.

1. All of science contradicts a literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis, and the story of Noah's Ark.

2. A lot of known archeology contradicts a literal view of the Pentateuch. For example, the Ancient Sumerian Civilization is older than a literal interpretation of scripture would date the earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_civilization

3. Most of the religious texts of the world's major religions have done a pretty good job of chronicling the history of the people associated with that religion. For example, Hinduism is a 9000 year old religion and much of its historical claims have been verified by archeologists.

While I think that someone can find a very good and reasoned case for Christianity in the works of C.S. Lewis, the argument that this thread is predicated on is highly flawed.

[artsylady]

As a Christian myself, I would say this defense of scripture that started this thread is highly flawed. Much of the Pentateuch is metaphorical from a historical and scientific point of view.

1. All of science contradicts a literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis, and the story of Noah's Ark.

2. A lot of known archeology contradicts a literal view of the Pentateuch. For example, the Ancient Sumerian Civilization is older than a literal interpretation of scripture would date the earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_civilization

3. Most of the religious texts of the world's major religions have done a pretty good job of chronicling the history of the people associated with that religion. For example, Hinduism is a 9000 year old religion and much of its historical claims have been verified by archeologists.

While I think that someone can find a very good and reasoned case for Christianity in the works of C.S. Lewis, the argument that this thread is predicated on is highly flawed.

Well Forrest, you're certainly welcome to give your opinion on WHY you believe it is highly flawed. Briefly though, this isn't about science, so your scientific arguments can be made in another thread. (And the scientific evidence is interpretted differently by different scientistists)

If your only argument thus far is the comparison of Hinduism, well Hinduism isn't even consistent. It has spanned polystheism, monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, monism and even atheism.

The argument set forth mainly concerns prophesies as well as the life of Jesus and his followers. How did the belief system, unless it was true, come together strictly by humans. I have already stated over and again that the writers of the day could have attritubed God to their stories easily enough even if there was no God, but there's so much more to it that just that.