spamandham

I retract that statement. I can't support it. If there is no concensus on any detail of Shakespeare, then we should be questioning whether he existed as well. For all I know, 'shakespeare' was merely the name of a performing arts company, and no man with that name had anything to do with it.

You are welcome to present whatever evidence you like that any of these points are generally agreed upon by histroians. I've already presented a quote by a historian that counters this claim.

Certainly that's true, but when there is not even sufficient evidence to come to a reasonable concensus, it's a good sign there's a hell of a lot of speculation going on. Evidence that supports multiple competing mainstream theories is basically useless.

Arguments from incredulity are rarely competing, but if it's any consolation, I'm not convinced by the MJ theories either. While it's certainly clear mythology worked its way into the stories, that doesn't mean the stories are rooted in it. The FJ hypothesis seems most parsimonious to me, for what that's worth (not much I imagine). But "we really don't know" is probably better.

Doug Shaver

The disciples were part of the story. If the story was faked, then there were no disciples.

gracebkr

A conspiracy of this proportion you claim, is not probable.

gracebkr

Has anyone here reviewed this yet

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Malachi151

Not necessarily.

At least Peter, James, and John were real people, and perhaps some of the others were as well, though maybe not all were.

However, by the time the Gospel of Mark was written, Peter, James, and John were probably all dead, and thus they were real people who were nevertheless characters in a fictional story, just as Pilate was, etc. and just as real people have been characters in fictional stories throughout time.

There is no conspiracy. What is a conspiracy about writing a story?

Doug Shaver

I am not claiming any conspiracy.

Doug Shaver

Yes, but if there was no Jesus of Nazareth, then none of them were his disciples.

aa5874

Do you mean Peter, James and John were common names in that region?

As far as I know, fictional accounts normally contain names that are commonly used.

This disclaimer is obviously missing from the NT.



There must be a conspiparcy when fictional events are chacterised as non-fiction in at least four books of the same cannon.

Koyaanisqatsi

It's painfully simple. Imagine the real world of first century Jerusalem circa 30 C.E., pealing away all of the ridiculous fantasy cult bullshit. Real people; real world. The Roman Empire has occupied the area for some 70 years, give or take. Under that occupation, various Jewish seditionist groups have no doubt risen and fallen in as many years.

Among them rises a radical, popular, seditionist Rabbi named Yeshua (who preaches that he has not come to bring peace, but a sword against the enemies of the Jews, aka, the Romans). He is either betrayed by one of his own, or by a Roman "undercover" operative that has infiltrated their "terrorist" organization, or was just flat out caught by the Romans.

He is tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the Romans for treason against Rome. As the leader of an insurrectionist movement, he is publicly beaten and mocked as a "King of the Jews," which, to the Romans (who are the ones who mocked him thus) would have been meant in the context of any Jew thinking they could lead a successful insurrection, i.e., this is what happens to anyone that would profess to be a leader of any Jewish revolution against the Roman Empire.

He is then crucified; a slow, torturous and very public example for all who would dare to commit further treason against the occupation. The Jew who dared to be a King wearing his crown of thorns slowly dying with all the other criminals for all to see.

What the later Christians call his "disciples," the Romans would have called his soldiers; brothers in arms. Seeing how their leader was either betrayed by one of their own, or otherwise discovered to be who he is (their Osama Bin Laden), they do as he supposedly instructed them to do and they go into hiding.

Those that would be caught would be killed for being terrorists/insurrectionists/sympathizers, or the like; those that survived would no doubt (considering the region) turn their fallen leader into a martyr and the stories of his "divine" providence start spreading among any the survivors can recruit, or just tell the tale.

A second generation of what Jesus had formed begins to take root. Yes it is both religious and insurrectionist, as there was no such thing as a separation of Church and State in those days, so as this insurrectionist movement grows, so grows the Jesus myth. He was not just a leader, but a messenger from God come to free the Jews and lead his people to freedom; aka, every Jewish messiah myth. Some even say that not even death stopped him; that he was seen risen from the grave. The Romans could not stop him/the movement, even in death.

"What else could he do, Poppa?"
"He could turn water into wine; feed the hungry; walk on water; raise the dead and give sight to the blind."

Etc.

The movement the Romans thought they had crushed by killing the leader backfires and instead grows, because they inadvertantly turned what was actually just a fanatical leader into a semi-deified martyr-messiah. The survivors use this iconography to recruit more insurrectionists/terrorists to their cause in the decades after his death and the Romans, circa 60 C.E. now have an even larger insurrectionist revolt brewing. Not all of them are "christians", of course; they are factionalized, but nonetheless united in one goal; to overthrow, or otherwise disrupt the occupation of their land in any way they can.

Enter Paul. For my money, Paul was another Roman operative who not only infiltrates the new "Jesus movement" but sees rather quickly that it's a threat, due primarily to the fact that they aren't just united against Rome, but that they are united under a strong mythology of the martyred leader who could heal the sick and raise the dead and transcended even the death that the Romans inflicted upon him for his freedom fighting ways.

He learns that the movement is not just out to overthrow the Romans for being occupiers of their land, but also because they killed a Jewish messiah sent from their God to free the Jews. It's become a "jihad" in these radical, fanatical second and third generation insurrectionists who are uncontrollable by their San Hedrin. The "detente" that previously may have existed with the more orthodox Jewish leaders back in the days before Jesus was martyred no longer keeps the peace with these new generations.

So, he starts a systematic restructuring of their sporadic, fractured, factionalized mythology; convincing whoever in this new movement will listen that it wasn't the Romans who killed Jesus; but the very San Hedrin leaders who conspired with Pilate to have Jesus killed. How does he know? Jesus appeared to him in a vision and bestowed upon him the....insert magical lies crafted to convince already ignorant peasent believers that Paul has "special knowledge" of their martyred messiah; that he didn't just beat death spiritually, but physically! Wow! Jesus resurrected bodily from his grave to prove his divinity.

"Well, that's incredible, Uncle Paul. Tell us more! Tell us your special knowledge."

It was their Jewish fathers who killed their beloved leader. Jesus was a peace-loving son of God who, when he said he came to bring a sword, not peace, meant that he came to bring peace, not a sword and...insert the Roman version of early christianity here. Hate the Jews for killing Jesus; not the Romans.

He states it quite clearly even though it is unquestioned who actually killed Jesus, so we know right there, at least, that Paul's agenda is radically different from actual historical events. But it must be true. He had a vision of Jesus and has special knowledge about Jesus and he was a converted Jew himself! A man's tongue would burn in his mouth if he spoke such lies against Jehovah, etc.,etc., etc.

Does it work? No. Paul can only convince those on the periphery and even among those there is serious doubt that Jesus rose bodily from the grave.

So enter Mark. The Roman version of early christianity is codified and the "real" passion narrative is crafted. Once again exonerating the Romans for Jesus' death; hell, Pilate did everything in his power--publicly declaring Jesus to be innocent of all crimes--but it was the Jews, again, that forced Pilate to do that which he did not want to do, for he, Pilate, the Roman Kommandant was afraid of the Jewish crowd and had no choice but to give in to their murderous frenzy.

Mark says, "Yes, Jesus was a messenger from the Jewish god to his people, but they are the ones who rose up against him and forced the Romans to have him killed." A propaganda revision codified supposedly at or around the time of the Roman military instigating a "final solution" of sorts to wipe out the Jews and destroy their temple.

Classic (literally) occupational revisionist propaganda. At the same time that the Roman military is mounting to kill or dissipate the Jewish revolt, you've got Roman propagandists spreading the lie in the region and to his followers that it was the Jews who killed their beloved Jewish martyr; that their fallen leader instructed them all to turn the other cheek and do whatever the Roman leaders tell them to do; to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, etc. and while it doesn't work on those intended for it to work, it does, however, work on the fringe "Hellenized" Jews and the Gentiles especially.

Why? Because it's a load of anti-Orthodox Jewish crap, that's why and the people it's working on aren't exactly critical thinkers to begin with. They are already Roman, if not at least Roman sympathizers; but what's more, none of them, obviously, are atheist stalwarts. They are already superstitious sheeple, conditioned to believe pretty much whatever they are told to believe, so long as the lie is crafted according to their secret fears and desires.

For those in the region who already hate the Jews, particularly the Orthodox San Hedrin, and are pro-Roman (the Gentiles) you couldn't have a better crafted mythology. So, what was once meant to destabilize a Jewish theology in the region in order to help quell Jewish revolution, instead takes hold among the primarily non-Jewish or fringe, non-orthodox Jewish people and a "Jewish messiah" myth becomes a largely Gentile belief cult, particularly since the Romans were successful in destroying the Temple and dissipating the Jewish stronghold on the region.

Paul and Mark and whoever else that history has forgotten were right. The Jews killed their own messiah and their punishment was near annhilation and the destruction of their most holy of all holy Temples by what should have been the losers; the Romans, if Jewish prophecy was correct.

So, a pro-Roman, anti-Jewish "New Testament" takes hold in the aftermath, eventually to the point where it becomes a pagan, pantheist version of Jewish monotheism, with three gods being one and from that point forward, the theology continues to grow into a slave mentality; do what earthly authority (aka, the Romans) tell you to do and you will be rewarded in heaven for your docility.

Several generations later and you've got various factions, of course, some more radical than others all debating what Jesus' divinity really was and is, but the one thing that does not change is the very contradictory notion that a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy in the form of Jesus would result in the near annhilation of the Jewish population; that the enemies of God's chosen people (the Romans) would be the victors and the Jews the losers.

Therefore, it must have been ordained by what is no longer just the "Jewish God," but everyone's God (except for the Jews). A one hundred and eighty degree opposite result from what the now "Old" Testament prophesied would happen.

I could go on, but I think everyone can see how a lie like that grows and twists and changes (even upon itself) in the ensuing decades until the Roman slave cult of Christianity finally becomes the official "religion" of the Roman Empire, which in turn sees the sheeple control theology for the powerhouse that it is, that it becomes the Holy Roman Empire, where a battle of control over the human "spiritual" mind becomes the focus for "occupation" beyond merely geographical borders.

And in case anyone's forgotten, the Roman Empire never fell; it just transitioned from a primarily military one to a primarily "religious" one and still remains as one of the most influential global Empires the world has ever seen. Instead of conquering more nations (what was left to conquer?), the military become "crusaders" to convert or kill all within the Empire.

And the throne remains today. You can go there on your honeymoon and see the oppulence still standing; the Pope of the "true" Christian Church still influencing millions of cult followers from a golden pulpit in Rome.

Basic human gullibility combined with both the fear of "hell" and a brutal, centuries long doctrine of believe or die and voila! The entire Christian cult history revealed for what it is; a pack of obvious, poorly written lies that originally (and still, for many) had one goal and one goal only; kill the Jews.

:huh:

spamandham

What conspiracy? The theory is not wild and complicated at all, it's almost trivially simple. Someone wrote a book, and it spawned a religion. The rest was added on over time.

That's all that's required to explain any of this, and it's hardly implausible. We are seeing the exact same thing happen in our own day with scientology.