Radorth

The number of assertions or implications of hoaxes carried off by the first Christians is really starting to add up. ED seems to have opened quite a can of worms, which the skeptics here seem little bothered about.

Make no mistake. He sees a conspiracy under every bush in his thesis. And he says as much himself. Quote:

"They are constructing careful and elaborate pieces of symbolism, and story lines will be crafted, details invented, sources altered, to create that theological or educational statement. It is important to make ourselves aware of this, and to counter the naivete that is regularly brought to these documents which appeals to an analysis of their content as though they represent a log of actual happenings, down to the smallest detail."

Here are some of the conspiracies suggested of late:

1. The story of John the Baptist is a hoax which took in even Josephus, apparently. This hoax was apparently put together to satisfy the Jews demand that Elijah must come before the Messiah. ‘Tis something of a mystery why they called him John the Baptist, whose existence is now questioned in spite of Josephus. It doesn't even rhyme with Elijah.

2. Bede and I have both asked why, when the Gospels and Acts were dreamed up or redacted in the second century, these (rather clever) liars didn't expunge various negative or embarrassing passages. Fighting among the apostles, Peter denying Christ, one writer saying "he could not work many miracles there," Jesus' belief that the kingdom was imminent, and a hundred little details such common criminals would not bother with. (Which is how they get caught)

3. The epistles of Peter must have been forged in his name although Paul's are considered reliable enough to prove major conspiracies later on. Thus Peter's references to an earthly crucified Jesus were summarily thrown out, with no discussion or facts offered.

4. Three of the Gospels are named after apostles, but a fourth is not. It's named after some physician nobody ever heard of. Why didn't they call it the "Gospel according to James" since he knew Jesus' whole history. You' think they'd have "James" writing stories of birds landing on Jesus' shoulders and him being the nicest kid on the block, like the Buddha.

5. There was a conspiracy, we are assured by Scigirl, to burn, redact or expunge everything that did not line up with some lying money grubbers' (Intensity's take) picture of Jesus.

6. There was a conspiracy by the writers of Luke and John to add in their personal beliefs we are told. We are assured now that even John is simply plagiarized from Mark and Q. This is another of ED's novel, rather slanderous, and gratuitous assertions, with nary an example, word of explanation or even a single source to consult. Not sure why they bothered to add or change details- apparently to target converts of their own sorry ilk. (But that's OK. We'll bring this up when skeptics go lose this argument and go back their perennial favorite- that the Gospel's are too disparate to be taken seriously.)

7. But let us consider some parallel conspiracies which must be taking place. How is it we find no apostates who know or say anything about these myth-fests? If there is one single ref between 60 and 200 to an apostate saying "these guys are lying," I haven't heard it. I would be quite impressed with one or two of those. I've raised this question before, but I only get two answers 1. If there was noting going on, there was nothing to comment on. (Conceivable but weak given the Roman references alone). Or 2. "The Christians destroyed all the evidence." In other words, another conspiracy.

8. And consider the incredible breadth and complexity of these implied conspiracies and the intelligence of their disingenuous advocates! Long sermons put into Jesus' mouth, some of the most beautiful and ingenious metaphors and parables in all of ancient or modern literature, the smallest interesting detail reported, such as Luke saying "and they disbelieved for joy," Mary's Magnificat, the treachery and silly outbursts from Peter and so many more things. Why all the frills? And why ]didthese gifted myth-makers get together and write them? Doherty doesn't tell us that. And what did they do with those who resisted them? Knife them or something?

Are the Gospels fantastic? Yes. What would you expect from God if he in fact existed? Is it possible the Gospels report something that didn't happen? Sure, and they sometimes do, which even relatively orthodox scholars would freely admit.

9. ED and those who rush to his defense are forced to include far more people than just this extraordinary band of liars. They are effectively forced to make Josephus and at least two other Roman commentators a part of the conspiracy, or at least claim they themselves were duped. Why one wonders, when he has asked such an admittedly good question, make so many weak and totally unsupported assertions? Why not simple ask the question, and show his intellectual honesty (if he has any) by not trying to cover every detail with some novel scripture interpretaton or other device? One feels little less manipulated than s/he might if his innuendo turned out to be so and we found we had believed a great lie.

He never once fails, when skeptics raise a good question, to apply Vorks theorum: (re Bede) that is, if Vork can make up a story to explain a text, that story is just as likely as the plain reading of the text. He applies this to disbelieve everything that weakens his view. Methinks, if ED is so apt to contrive stories and explanations, perhaps he thinks that's what everyone else does. Of course in ED's case we have clearer motives than we can find for the early Jesus myth-makers. He's not being used for animal food. He's not making up stories and apologetics with a menacing Roman authority threatening or torturing him, though I'm sure he feels persecuted. He may not get rich from his writings, but he has already been flooded with e-mails from thankful fans, and has every chance of becoming famous.

I must ask, who are the true skeptics and who are the Inquisitors on this particular issue? Is it possible the Christians are being the more rational about the evidence and asking for some well founded proof? Is it possible the skeptics are finding a conspiracy, a clever liar and a witch under every bush? ( Save Kirby anyway) Skeptics often bring up the Inquisitions or the last great Protestant show of shameless witch hunting, the Salem trials, but I honestly think some skeptics are here (perhaps unconsciously) revive the practice.

Radorth

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Steven Carr

First of all, we know perfectly well that Christians forged lots of things. How many fake Gospels and epistles were there?

Paul complains about letters forged in his name.

It is therefore hardly ultrascpetical to ask if religious people are telling the truth.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Radorth said:


Well actually Radorth, there is considerable evidence of exactly that - much more than 1 or 2 :
[*] Trypho in c.130 doubted the existance of Jesus ("You follow an empty rumour and make a Christ for yourselves... if he was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown...")

[*] Marcion c.140 denied Jesus was a physical man (like the Docetics).
[*] Minucius Felix c.155 explicitly denied the crucifixion and the incarnation.
[*] Tatian c.165 compared Greek myth with Christian myth : "Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories"
[*] Lucian c.169 claimed Christians are "deceivers"
[*] Dionysius of Corinth c.170 complained that the Christian scriptures had been doctored.
[*] Tertullian c.170 wrote about some Christians who argued the resurrection was not a physical event, and that Jesus was never born of Mary.
[*] Celsus c.178 SPECIFICALLY argued the Gospels were merely based on MYTHS: "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and
that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"
[*] Caius c.200 claimed that Christian doctrine had been falsified.
[*] Porphyry c. 280 wrote in Against the Christians : " the evangelists were
inventors - not historians "
[*] Julian c.360 wrote in Against the Gallileans: "why do you worship this
spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "


So,
now that you HAVE heard about all the contemporary sceptics, you should be impressed.


Quentin David Jones

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

Steven Carr

Gosh, even the New Jerome Bible Commentary, dedicated to 2 Popes and with a foreword by a Cardinal, concedes that 2 Peter is a forgery.

These darned atheists get everwhere, even into the most prestigious ranks of Catholic scholars!

Jayhawker Soule

Isn't this part of a stylized account by Justin of a debate presumed to have occurred some two decades earlier?

Layman

What are the cites for this?

Radorth

Iasion, are you seriously asserting these were all orthodox believers in a historucal Jesus who recanted and claimed a plot to invent him?

I would hate to find out you were being disingenuous as well.

Marcion appears a candidate, but he was always on the fringe and soon excommunicated, no? I'm simply asking for candidates who can be shown to have followed the party line, and then blew the whistle. The fact that somebody said there were "decievers" is totally meaningless and misleading. Who were they? Who exactly were they talking about?

Radorth

Layman

Typho was not a Christian, but a Jew. And he's far from claiming that he knows that the early Christians did not believe Jesus existed.

Marcion is the best bet, except that he believes Jesus existed and came down to earth. But he's a gnostic and denies he was realy human.

Most of the rest were not Christians, and Celsus actually affirmed that Jesus existed and did miracles, but accused him of sorcery.

But even most of the nonChristains cited did not say that Jesus never existed, they challenge some or other aspect of Christianity (no incarnation, no resurrection, or generically claim they are "deceivers."

Radorth

Thanks Layman. Perhaps now we can get back to the main point, and to the Christians rightful demand for convincing evidence of such a pervasive conspiracy.

Rad

Jayhawker Soule

Again, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that Typho actually spoke those words? Just curious ...