A Massive Conspiracy Theory?

[systemstrike_7]

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.

Ok, first of all, Jesus probably did live. Better yet, Jesus of Nazareth, born in Nazareth, Jew, always obedient to Yahweh alone, not God, Jesus did live. Have you ever read about Caesar? There are all sorts of mythical stories about him that we take as untrue. People would give him all sorts of divine characteristics and write mythical stories about him after he died. But we know better than to take it seriously. We know that he really lived, and that he was a regular human, just like the rest of us. How are we to know that this very same thing didn't happen to Jesus? As we know, the gospel authors got much of their information from oral tradition. You say Matthew was an eye-witness, but then why would he take so much from Mark? Why would he need to use someone else's account, one who wasn't an eye witness, to get much of his information? It doesn't add up.

I was merely being sarcastic about everyone being crammed into Jerusalem. Once again, your taking things out of context and attacking my intellect. I'm merely stating that it would be highly unnecessary to make everyone travel to different places, not just one as you seem to think, to take a census. They could have just as easily taken the census while everyone stays in the town that they LIVE. The town that they grow their crops and make a living. The town that they have probably lived most of their lives. The town where they are raising their children. And what about elderly people? Would they be capable of making such a long and arduous trip? Would a pregnant woman be in any condition to travel that kind of distance? Once again, it doesn't make sense.

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.

[artsylady]

first of all, Jesus probably did live. Better yet, Jesus of Nazareth, born in Nazareth, Jew, always obedient to Yahweh alone, not God, Jesus did live. Have you ever read about Caesar? There are all sorts of mythical stories about him that we take as untrue. People would give him all sorts of divine characteristics and write mythical stories about him after he died. But we know better than to take it seriously. We know that he really lived, and that he was a regular human, just like the rest of us. How are we to know that this very same thing didn't happen to Jesus? As we know, the gospel authors got much of their information from oral tradition.

I'd like to see more on the writing of Caear where you say he was given 'divine characteristics'.

In any case, Jesus was just a poor Jewish carpenter, not a ruler. I had posted a link on writers outside of the Bible where they confirm a lot of what the Bible says. Why would a Jewish writer even say that he had 'magical powers'? If he'd just been a powerful orator, he would not have had even close to the kind of popularity that he attained.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

You say Matthew was an eye-witness, but then why would he take so much from Mark? Why would he need to use someone else's account, one who wasn't an eye witness, to get much of his information? It doesn't add up.

The gospel writers took their quotes from another source known as 'Q'.

I was merely being sarcastic about everyone being crammed into Jerusalem. Once again, your taking things out of context and attacking my intellect.

I didn't realize you were being sarcastic at all. I'm not attacking your intellect. If you feel attacked, I'm sorry.

I'm merely stating that it would be highly unnecessary to make everyone travel to different places, not just one as you seem to think, to take a census. They could have just as easily taken the census while everyone stays in the town that they LIVE. The town that they grow their crops and make a living. The town that they have probably lived most of their lives. The town where they are raising their children. And what about elderly people? Would they be capable of making such a long and arduous trip? Would a pregnant woman be in any condition to travel that kind of distance? Once again, it doesn't make sense.

As stated quite a few times, there were many nomadic people back then.

But the question does go back to the conspiracy question. If the only way the writers could have made him born in Bethlehem was to have his mother travel to Bethlehem, why would the writers have made up such an elaborate lie to get him to be born there? They could have easily just said the Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Who would have known the difference. There were no birth certificates back then. Or, why not just have Mary and Joseph visiting relatives in Bethlehem at the time of his birth? They could have invented a gazzilion reasons that could have put Mary in Bethlehem to then have Jesus born there, yet they chose a colossal lie instead? Does this make sense to you?

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

[systemstrike_7]

I'd like to see more on the writing of Caear where you say he was given 'divine characteristics'.

I have to make this somewhat quick because I have classes, but remind me again with your next response and I will gather the info for you.

In any case, Jesus was just a poor Jewish carpenter, not a ruler. I had posted a link on writers outside of the Bible where they confirm a lot of what the Bible says. Why would a Jewish writer even say that he had 'magical powers'? If he'd just been a powerful orator, he would not have had even close to the kind of popularity that he attained.

But Jesus gained many followers, just like the other "messiahs" of the time. First of all, Christian interpolations were frequent in Jewish writings. Scholars aren't even sure if any of Josphus' Testimonium is true. More than half of it has been skewed by Christian editors. But I will take a look at the link later today after work.

The gospel writers took their quotes from another source known as 'Q'.

Yes I am very much aware of this which helps my case that the authors could have very well invented most of the "narrative" story of Jesus. The Q source was mainly made up sayings and parables attributed to Jesus. There were no literary aspects in the Q source.

I didn't realize you were being sarcastic at all. I'm not attacking your intellect. If you feel attacked, I'm sorry.

It's fine. I should apologize. I have been in a touchy mood lately. I think my family is going nuts and I'm following right behind them.

As stated quite a few times, there were many nomadic people back then.

But the question does go back to the conspiracy question. If the only way the writers could have made him born in Bethlehem was to have his mother travel to Bethlehem, why would the writers have made up such an elaborate lie to get him to be born there? They could have easily just said the Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Who would have known the difference. There were no birth certificates back then. Or, why not just have Mary and Joseph visiting relatives in Bethlehem at the time of his birth? They could have invented a gazzilion reasons that could have put Mary in Bethlehem to then have Jesus born there, yet they chose a colossal lie instead? Does this make sense to you?

I guess you're right. They very well could have made a different lie. I'm merely speculating, but this could have simply been the easiest way to explain this. There was probably a census done in that time period, and they could have just simply twisted the facts a bit to put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

Not really. God has revealed himself to us today in far more ways than He did back then. We have the Bible, we have medical miracles happening all of the time (which science cannot explain). We have Jesus (did you consider reading more on Simon Greenleaf?). We have prophesies and archaeology to show the reliability of the Bible.

We have far more proof of the God of the Bible today, yet people don't beleive.

And my point, which I think you missed was that anyone could have become a Jew as well.

I would need to see some evidence of God "revealing" himself to us today. We have no burning bush, no direct speaking, no angelic visits, no parting of seas, no entire cities having fire and brimstone rained down on us, no people being turned into salt. None of that. I have not seen any medical miracles and if there were, why does he not save everyone that is a Christian? Why does he not heal all cancer? It would be unfair to merely save a few and leave the rest of us behind.

Yes, they could have become Jews, but they had no reason to. They had their own religions and own beleifs that were completetly different from the Jews.

I think you mean the Sumerians. Their writings are slightly older but that doesn't prove that they were around before the Jews. It only proves that the Sumerians happen to have preserved writings that are older.

It also shows us that the Sumerians lived around the year 8000 B.C. This is before the alleged creation of the earth, as recorded by the Jews.

I can't imagine people not choosing God today when He is obviously here either. Again, like today, anyone could have become a follower of God. Many of these nations saw the miracles of God yet rejected him. It wasn't because they themselves felt rejected by God. It was because they were hard-hearted.

Once again, I cannot believe that if they saw the miracles of God, they would deny him completely. If I saw a supernatural miracle of God today, then I would certainly have no problem in believing. But I sometimes wonder if God is guilty of exile.

You originally aluded to the fact that God could have done what he did for the Amakelites. But the Amakelites were not observing God, for whatever reason. The Jewish history starts with one man - Abraham, who was observing God.

And before Abraham, civilizations had their own religions and were worshipping their own gods/goddesses.

You said " They(the Jews) wanted to be the chosen people, so they wrote it as such."

But the fact of the matter is that they wrote more about their struggles, their inperfections, their failures, their rebellious nature and their complete reliance on God. If it was humans writing strictly for power and prestige, they would have made themselves out to look much better, don't you think?

We don't know that the God of the Bible did not reveal himself to the other nations as well. Maybe more writings from these ancient cultures concerning this same God will one day be discovered. The Jewish people preserved all of their writings, remember for future generations. Again, that's why God chose them. They were meticulous in this area, while others obviously were not. And yes, we do have ancient Sumerian writings and other writings, however their chronicals lasted only short periods of time.

They wrote about their struggles so that they could later explain how God restored them. This is common among different myths/religions. How much better can you get than being God's chosen people? This is about as good as it gets in their eyes.

I suppose we don't, but the evidence says otherwise. If these writings show up, it will be wonderful to study upon, and would open up an entire new horizon for ancient history. That will be a great day, if it comes. It hardly matters how long their chronicles lasted. The important thing is that they are there and must be given a critical look through.

Okay, I'll start with Mithra then.

born of a virgin? No, (born out of solid rock).

were accompanied by angelic visits? No

Signs in the sky? Yes

Prophesies? No.

Followers who died for the beliefs? No.

Their religion lives on? No.

Born out of a rock is considered miraculous right? Oh yes, it was.

They didn't exactly believe in angels

Yes

No

They had followers and after Constantine made Christianity the state religion they were persecuted by Christian authorities. Christianity even stole their holidays.

Christianity did everything to eliminate this belief, and they were obviously succesful. But I was reading through a religious history book, and saw something about cults that still live to this day, but I still have yet to look into this. This could be false, so don't take it seriously, yet.

Vague?

Yes.

"But you, Bethlehem, son of Eprhaith, in the land of Judah, are not the lase among the rulers in Judah. For you of you shall come a Ruler, who will shepherd my people"

We know that Jesus was no ruler. This prophecy is implying a king to come rule the Israelites. Jesus did no such thing.

"Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, `The LORD our righteousness.'" (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Notice it says he will reign as king. This did not happen. Jesus died, and he wasn't king. You could argue that he was a king on a mystical realm, but the Jews had no reason to put this prophecy with Jesus.

"Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is commonly taken out of context. If you read the surrounding scripture you will see that this is merely a promise made by God to deliver Ahaz from his enemies. And a better translation is 'young woman' not 'virgin'. Ahaz would not have taken this to be a prophecy of something that happens hundreds of years later, but something that happened probably in the next 65 years.

I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not conceal them from their children, but tell to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and His strength and His wondrous works that He has done. (Psalms 78:2-4)

Do you include this merely because the person says he will talk in parables? Jesus didn't invent parables. They were pretty common. This is very very vague.

And on that day the deaf shall hear words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see. (Isaiah 29:18)

Again, very vague. This is promised, even in greek mythology. This could mean a number of things.

Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness and streams in the Arabah. (Isaiah 35:5-6)

Again, very vague. This is the same as the above one.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)

He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Isaiah 53:3)

It is interesting to note that when James talks of Jesus' suffering, he quotes straight from the suffering servant song. Instead of telling Jesus' story he instead quotes some scripture from the OT. Well, James never speaks of Jesus' earthly ministry, he can only give OT scripture to make his story. I would argue that the early evangilist used the suffering servant passage and based their Jesus off of such things.

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

This is another example of midrash. The gospel authors included Jesus riding in on a donkey, to help him fulfill prophesy. Painting the bullseye around the arrow. And again, it speaks of a king. Jesus was no such thing.

Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalms 41:9

This Psalmist is speaking of his own life. He was not speaking prophecy. This is a supposed prophecy of Judah, right? Well, I believe this passage was taken out of context and given the characteristic of prophecy by later evangelists.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)

I already explained the suffering servant prophecy above.

I gave My back to those who strike Me, and My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting. (Isaiah 50:6)

Isaiah is speaking of himself, not speaking prophecy. Another example of taking scripture out of context.

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

Explained above.

For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalms 22:16) (hundreds of years before crucifiction was practiced)

I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. (Psalms 22:17-18)

Peircing the hands and the feet could mean many things. And again, that Psalmist is speaking of HIMSELF, not speaking prophecy.

With the second part, the same applies, and this could also be another example of midrash. The gospel authors included this in their story, and told us straight forward that they did, just to apply prophecy to their story.

He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. (Psalms 34:20)

Again, midrash. And it is highly unlikely that they did not break his bones. If a convict escaped the crucifiction alive, then the guards would pay with their lives. I doubt they would take that chance.

"And it will come about in that day," declares the Lord God, "That I shall make the sun go down at noon And make the earth dark in broad daylight. (Amos 8:9)

Again, midrash.

His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth. (Isaiah 53:9)

Explained above.

Just to name a few.

Thank you.

Not to mention that the gospel authors made alot of their story based off of a misreading from the OT.

What do you mean?

I mean that they formed their story out of the clay called the Tanakh. They read that their "king"(which Jesus never became) would ride in on a donkey, and so they wrote it as such.

They made the prophecies come true, not Jesus.

So there were men who plotted to make these things seem like truth?

There was no plotting being done. They merely exaggerated Jesus' story to make him seem like the Messiah. Remember, they were expecting Jesus to return very very soon. They wanted people to believe in this, because they believed Jesus was coming in their lifetime. Well, he never did, but the tradition lived on. Every generation believes that the end times will happen in their life, and they will attribute silly signs to help their case. Well, two thousand years later and nothing.

[systemstrike_7]

This whole quote thing is really upsetting. Why won't it work? I'm gonna try something.

I hope this works.

[systemstrike_7]

Ok, what the goof....

[Yahsway]

Shalom system, who wrote the Torah? Thanks

[systemstrike_7]

The Jewish people wrote the Torah. Of course, you would tell me that God wrote the Torah, but I cannot believe that. Especially the books of Moses, who I might add, weren't written by Moses. What point were you wanting to make?

[Floatingaxe]

The Jewish people wrote the Torah. Of course, you would tell me that God wrote the Torah, but I cannot believe that. Especially the books of Moses, who I might add, weren't written by Moses. What point were you wanting to make?

Says you.

[systemstrike_7]

The Jewish people wrote the Torah. Of course, you would tell me that God wrote the Torah, but I cannot believe that. Especially the books of Moses, who I might add, weren't written by Moses. What point were you wanting to make?

Says you.

Well I didn't just make it up. This is generally accepted among bible scholars. The first five books were probably written by a J source, a P source, an E source, and a D source.

[Yahsway]

Correct system. The books of Moses were not written by Moses, how could he have written of his own death?

The Jewish people, scribes, yes, these were the ones who wrote our Torah.

Who wrote the gospels Matthew, Mark, ect..