A Massive Conspiracy Theory?

[systemstrike_7]

Well, this is not certain. It is highly disputed as to who actually wrote the gospel accounts. Mark is a pretty good guess, but Matthew and John? I don't know why they would need Mark to base their story from, especially if they were eye witnesses. No sense, no sense.

[artsylady]

Oh man. With these quotes not working these are getting pretty tiresome to read. Can someone please fix this problem?

Systemstrike:

Just a reminder, as requested, about links regarding Caesar given supernatural attributes.

Yes, Jesus did gain many followers. More than any other during any period of time and He still has the biggest following to this day. He was a poor carpenter but many writers wrote of his miracles. I don't think it's the same as a Caesar being written about this way. My question about why a Jewish writer would admit Jesus had magical powers wasn't addressed.

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.

We don't know this because Q hasn't been discovered (at least not to my knowledge)

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.

Sorry to hear that. I hope things have improved since you wrote this.

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

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.

Well don't discount the very real possibilty that he was born there either.

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.

But humans have accounts of supernatural occurances every single day. Some of them just can't be explained as being 'worldly'. And many have the added fact that medical doctors can't explain them. I can find some if you like.

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.

If I knew the answers to your questions, I would be God. We can't begin to proclaim to know a lot of these kinds of answers. Only God knows. There simply just isn't an explanation to everything. I can guess that cancer is simply brought upon by man (genetic modifications, hydro, who knows) You really want this disease to go away and we'd be living in a different world. But again, I'm only guessing.

Now, that being said, while there may be questions left unanswered, I certainly beleive that Christianity answers more of life's 'mysteries' better than anything else can. Aliens, ghosts, pyramids, the language chicken egg problem (ie: man can't talk without being taught to learn - so who taught him?), survival of the Jewish people and their reclaiming of Israel (called a 'miracle' that they survived thus far), scientific anomalies (1000s of them - see a website called "Science Frontiers"). I can go on here but I just think that we were given our information on a 'need to know' basis and we are required by God himself to have 'faith'.

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'll try to find some time to look up why this culture is dated as such.

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.

It all depends on how you look at things. I see evidence of God all of the time. I think if I have time, i'll post a few of these modern day 'miracles' or mysteries for you to look at.

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.

I think we agree on this.

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.

Hmmm. Okay....I see things the same way today but i hope you don't fault me for it. I'm weak, I can be rebellious, I often fail and I am completely reliant on God. BUT, I AM a child of the Most High God - a daughter and an heir to his kingdom. I am nothing without God, but because I accepted Him, I am His and He is mine. God is what creates the 'good' side of me. The side that wants to reach out to people in need, to love them, etc etc etc. And again, it's not like I have exclusive rights to this. Anyone else can heave it too. Just like anyone could have become a Jew.

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. /quote]

Forgiveness, love, looking after widows and the poor and dying for Christ are not attractive to humankind. Christianity caught on because it was Truth. If other religions were eliminated, I personally think it was a good thing.

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.

/quote]

But according to Christianity, Jesus will make a second appearance, this time, as a ruler. This is one of the verses that made the Jewish people NOT believe in Jesus. There are two different sides of the coming Messiah - one as a suffering servant and one as a reigning ruler. They overlooked (as the prophets predicted) the traits of the suffering servant.

"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.

Ditto as last response.

Okay, I've officially run out of time. Sorry it took so long to respond. I'll try to get to the rest later.

[IslandRose]

Hi, artsylady!

Your problem is the number of quotes per post. I think that if you break each post up into smaller bits, with fewer quotes per post, it will clear up your problem.

IR

[systemstrike_7]

Hi, artsylady!

Your problem is the number of quotes per post. I think that if you break each post up into smaller bits, with fewer quotes per post, it will clear up your problem.

IR

Thank you, IslandRose. That was getting rather frustrating...

And artsylady, it is perfectly okay that it took you a while to answer. You don't have a due date or anything. If you are going to hit the other spots later, then I will wait until I have your complete argument so that I can fully make my rebuttal. I will be planning a "Valentines Day date" for my girlfriend over the next couple of days, so most of my attention will be focused upon that...

[artsylady]

Thank you IR!!! I'll try that.

undefined

Wow! Lucky girl.

[artsylady]

Waaaaaaah. Didn't work.

This is the part I meant to have in quotes. (that I will copy and paste into that area that shows us as "undefined" as I've been trying to do.) But it seemed to work for you SS.???

I will be planning a "Valentines Day date" for my girlfriend over the next couple of days, so most of my attention will be focused upon that...

[Guest lnj]

The Bible indicates plainly that there is one Supreme, invisible influence by which God did in fact Control, Direct and Communicate with the Spirits and minds of the men by whom the Bible was written.

This invisible influence is the Holy Spirit - God's own Spirit. For example, the apostle Paul says:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.(2 Tim 3v16)

The word here is translated 'by inspiration" means literally "inbreathed of God" and is directly connected with the word Spirit. In other words, the Spirit of God - The Holy Spirit - was the invisible, but INERRANT influence which controlled and directed all those who wrote the various books of the Bible.

This is stated perhaps more plainly still by the apostle Peter.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.(2nd Pet 1v20)

In other words, in no case, does the message or revelation of the Bible ORIGINATE with man, but ALWAYS with GOD.

Excerpt from "The Spirit Filled Believer's Handbook", By Derek Prince.

Derek Prince:

Recognized internationally as a leading Bible Teacher.Educated at Eton College and Cambridge University.Held a fellowship in ancient and modern philosophy.Also studied Hebrew and Aramaic both at Cambridge University and at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

[Artemus Prime]

The Gospels never claim to be exhaustive records of the life of Christ. Any biographer must of necessity be selective. One can in fact test the Gospel accounts, as has been shown before, both Internally and Externally. Several authors of Antiquity wrote of Jesus as a person of history; among them, Tacitus, Josephus, Seutonius, and Pliny the Younger to name a few.

William F. Albright, one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, adds a helpful comment: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date of between A.D. 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." This statement is crucial because it means that some of Christ's opponents, who were living when He was on earth, were undoubtedly still around when the New Testament books were penned. Their presence would have prompted the New Testament writers to give careful attention to the veracity of the statements. And we can be certain that if any errors were made in their accounts the opponents of Christ (of which there were many) would have been quick to expose them. (Quote taken from Albright, William. Recent Discoveries in Biblical Lands. [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955,] p. 136; quoted in McDowell, op. cit., p. 65).

[Joshua-777]

Well, this is not certain. It is highly disputed as to who actually wrote the gospel accounts. Mark is a pretty good guess, but Matthew and John? I don't know why they would need Mark to base their story from, especially if they were eye witnesses. No sense, no sense.

How did matthew, and John base they're story from Mark? I Believe they based their story off of Jesus, not mark, Mark was only about 16 when he walked with Jesus, Now, mathew mark and luke, are concidered synopsis gosples, "Eye witness" John was more of a contrast teacher and also concidered the father of theology, He was an eye witness, but also he uses direct contrasts, Like light/darkness, sin/righteousness, which was very traditional for the Jewish writings. Also one big mistake you made with this comment, is that the gospel of Matthew was written before Mark, Mathews Gospel was written in 50 A.D. Mark was written in 68 A.D., so there is no debate or dispute saying that matthew based his story off of Mark, No, the evidence is in a 18 year difference in the time of the writings, John however didn't write his gospel until 85 ad-90 ad, which is a while away from mark, But evidence supports his own gospel isn't copied, 1. By his writing style, as well as different aspects of Jesus' life, John also apears with peter in the first part of acts, and is refered to by paul as one of the three pillars of the Church. Now, Though there may be many bias explinations, the evidence supports that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Did not base their story of anothers gospel, but off of Jesus Christ.

[artsylady]

Good answers from the beleivers. The atheists haven't responded too much.