neilgodfrey

There are of course conspiracies and then there are conspiracies -- one is the nonsense claim that the moon landing was a fraud and then there are the real life conspiracies that go on in private ceo and political meetings all the time. Solitary Man, I gather, is positing the straw man of the former type.

Solitary Man

Actually, I was positing the latter, i.e. deliberately coming together for a purpose. But if you wish to avoid your burden of evidencing, feel free.

neilgodfrey

I took your statement as the sort of conspiracy one associates with the former. This is the one that requires such a host of people to be in on a conspiracy that it is simply not plausible. If you are positing the latter, then there is no issue to raise. That's simply the everyday stuff of history and common human processes and does not even need to be addressed.

As for "evidencing" -- it appears that there is no fact that stands in the way of exploring the question I raised. You have raised alternative interpretations of the evidence, which is fair enough, but no evidence that makes my question unreasonable. That was what I was wanting to check here, and I've found the responses helpful so far.

neilgodfrey

Gosh Toto -- just browsing some of the other threads here and I see you already addressed my question only days before in almost the same words -- 5118659 Sounds like I have lots of company sharing the same question.

I like your patience,

N

aa5874

But, the gospels and the history of "Paul" appear to be all distortions. These writings do not represent the philosphy or tradition of the Jewish people at the time, they were erroneously and, probably deliberately, placed outside their actual chronology with the sole intention to mis-lead.

So, when it is written in the NT that certain events occurred during the time of Pilate, and certain persons lived, preached and was crucified, these are likely to be false, the author of the story was not a disciple of anyone and he was probably not even alive at the the purported time and could have had no witnesses for his report.

The NT represents a massive distortion of history, it has very little value in making a truthful representation of Jewish tradition. The NT was written in certain time zones and then placed in another to distort and mis-lead.

spamandham

This seems so obviously true, it's odd that it isn't universally accepted. For what appear to be reasons of mere tradition as far as I've been able to ascertain, it is assumed that the authors were trying to honestly record history.

In an age when most writings were works of propoganda, we assume these writings were not.

aa5874

I find extremely alarming that biblical scholars continue to rely on the NT to be of historical value when it is just a compilation of brute distortions, errors and misleading information and these scholars know that.

These biblical scholars have already deduced that Eusebius' chronology with respect to the Synotics is erroneous, they have already deduced that the authors of the Synoptics are not those put forward by Eusebius in "Church History". It is well known that "Paul's conversion story is false.

So, it can be easily deduced that the NT was fabricated to distort history, to place characters in time zones where they do not belong and fabricate events using known accepted historical figures like Pilate, Herod, Tiberius, Cladius, Festus, Agrippa, Herodias, Felix and others to conceal the deliberate mis-representation of their authors.

Amaleq13

How many of these writings contained stories falsely appear to have taken place in a specific time and feature known historical figures?

Amaleq13

To what end?

What was(were) the goal(s) of the authors in creating this misrepresentation?

aa5874

Why did Eusebius in "Church History" give an erroneous chronology of the Synoptics? Who is the main character of the Synoptics? Who really wrote them?

Eusebius could have truthfully claimed he does not know who or when they were written, yet he did not? Why did he do that?