Caveat: At the moment, I feel your analysis can too easily fall under the auspices of the Great Big Lie (given that my hypothesis is correct and Rome--the victors--rewrote history; it would be in their interest to make it seem as if they--Rome--were the unbelievers "turned" suddenly by the "truth" of the propaganda--the "doubting Thomas" ploy) and while I don't intend to negate any evidence against the hypothesis, I would like to find evidence that could be in support of the hypothesis first. Sorry to "shout" like that, but I'm sure you understand that phrase is primarily aimed at a general collective, rather than a selective one.

If this experiment is to be at all interesting, we'll need to see what evidence exists to support the theory before we can thoroughly destroy it.

Or so I was hoping when I started this concept (and began using an almost Elizabethan tone to my posts )


(edited for formatting...fuckin' smilies - Koy)

[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited March 19, 2001).]

Present some for us to evaluate. The dating of the scriptures is NOT just based on when Christians say they were written but on modern scientific and critical methods. We know from these methods that all of the NT existed in nearly its present form before 200 CE. Give me something to work with.

Quite so and a pox on me for a clumsy lout.

First, the notion of the accuracy of the timeline and why I'm asking to temporarily suspend offering negative (in the purest sense, "to negate") evidence and or analysis: The era we commonly refer to as the "Common Era" (now C.E., formerly A.D.) is suspect given the hypothesis. I know this sounds rather similar to a common apologetic, but the physical dating of documents is not relevant yet.

What I think (and, like it or not, I'm the one asking for the help) is currently more relevant is three fold:[list=1][*] Who wrote the documents as opposed to who could have written them (granted the speculation)?[*] Who ultimately benefitted from their authorship (and why)?[*] What do we know of actual Roman leaders of the time and their political deviousness?[/list=a]

Second, let's dispense with notions of whether or not Jesus actually was or was not God and instead grant that he was a remarkable teacher and leader of men (like Gandhi), who was indeed a threat to the occupied forces.

Who then would have the means and the intelligence to "scuttle" Gandhi (over time, and what a considerable amount of time it was--some 200 years) in the minds of his followers?

It's a deconstructive black op hypothesis with a mysanthropic implication from a man who considers himself foremost a humanist




(edited for formatting yet again...oh, and I can't access the spellchecker form home, so pardon the lysdexia - Koy)



[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited March 19, 2001).]

Layman and Nomad,

Do you all really believe that Constantine was converted and through his deep religious faith and motivation he made christianity the religion of Rome? Surely you aren't so naive that you believe that people that powerful operate that way. It takes a Machevellian attitude to get where he was, he saw christianity as a means to gaining power, the empire was divided and it was his conversion that united rome.

If you think he was sincerely born again, do you also think that Napolean brought the pope to France because he loved Jesus? Please tell me you guys aren't that naive. Politicians use religion, it is a tool. Koy is proposing that it was actually invented by them in order to gain controll, I think it is a valid question since it has served them so well in in the past.

David

David

Do you even read what I write in my posts?

I've made it clear that MY focus has been pre-Constantine. Why did so many of Jesus followers claim that they had seen him resurrected? Especially when there was no such expectation in Jewish thought? Why were they willing to continue spreading that word even in the face of persecution? Why did Paul change from being a hardline Jewish persecutor of Christians to being early Christianity's most succesful evangelist to the gentiles? Why did James, the brother of Jesus, doubt his ministry while he was alive, but then believed in it after he claimed to have seen the risen Christ? Why was he willing to proclaim this even to his own death at the hands of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem?

As I hope you can see. Blaming Constantine doesn't account for the above.

As for Constantine, I believe it is more interesting to ask why it was so politically expedient for him to become a Christian at all? Especially given Christianity's disfavored status up to that point.

Sure I do, I'm not directly responding to any of them. I am injecting my viewpoint that despite yours and Nomads rejection of it, Koy has a point worth discussion.

Well, all I have to say about that is I could ask why did Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer get old Injun Joe in trouble?
Get my point?

Hmm, but what does account for it? A 2000 year old book passed down from man to man.
In fact, the meticulous Roman records of execution don't mention Jesus at all.

Well considering the strength of the Jewish religion at the time, certainly the strongest single faith, It would be quite enticing for a ruler to latch onto a religion that is more liberal with it's OT laws, a religion that gives to Ceasar what is Ceasars. Certainly the Jewish community, while thriving and coexisting with Romans, were on some level at odds with the Romans over authority and controll of the Jewish people. After all, the Jewish people only respected the emperor insofar as it agreed with their religion.

This more relaxed version of Judaism was more acceptable by gentiles. The practice of the sacraments and removal of the foreskin was not required, so gentiles could be Christian and would not have to stand out among the other Gentiles at dinner or while bathing as a Christian or Jew. This facilitated its spread throughout Rome among the people of power. They could practice their religion in private without ridicule of their non-christian peers. By the time of Constantine, the christian movement was quite strong, and more importantly, open to all.

[This message has been edited by dmvprof (edited March 20, 2001).]

If your only response is that it was all fiction, then there is no reasoning with you. Rather than discuss the evidence, you refuse to even examine it.

I'm learning more and more that for all of their self-hype, skeptics are just cowards.

Nomad:
you said I would like to politiely point out that you and I are guests here, while Koy is a legitimate user of the Secular Web. I do not think it is a wise idea to start dictating rules to the 'owners' of the board when you are an uninvited guest. I can only picture how awful it would be to have that happen in my house--- A person to show up unannounced and to dictate to me what the rules in my house ought to be.

Koy: It is an interesting idea, but I don't think you could ever find support for it--- either the 'creators' were too swift and covered their tracks too well... or it doesn't hold water.

I am under the impression that Judaism was protected as a religion by the Roman Empire (one way they had kept such good control over their massive empire was to not dictate to their conquered peoples... ), and, by extension, Christianity was also protected as an offshoot of Judaism until, I think, about 70AD ... which may or may not help you in your theory... Since the earliest writings were traced to that point in time (give or take a few yesrs, I know I am off on my date).

Christianity is a very ruler friendly religion, but I am not sure if it created by them. It could have been picked out of the existing religions and tweaked (wait, that was done, historically ), but I do not think it was created from whole cloth.

Layman,
I think u missed it, will u check out the last paragraph of my last post, I edited it.

Please tell me why I should think it is any more true than Tom Sawyer? There are plenty of real references and events in the book, The Mississippi, the Gambling Boats, etc.
It is disturbing to me that you are using text within the book as evidence of its validity.

Not sure why you think I'm a coward, I'll talk all day with you about whatever you want, but I won't use circular logic to try to prove something.

Then lets talk about the letters of Paul. They are not fictional accounts sold for profit, at least 7 are accepted by the scholarly community as genuinely written by Paul to several early Christian churches. Paul talks about his past life as a persecutor of Christians, something his audience is familiar with, as well as his meetings with Peter, John, and James.

Now, on what basis do you compare Paul's letters to Huckleberry Finn?


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 20, 2001).]