Do you agree with the following statement?

[Phil153]

txag,

One of your problems is that you seem to think the account of Jesus and Christianity you've seen in the movies represents reality. Which is amusing to say the least.

Allow me to offer an alternative explanation that doesn't involve a massive conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen.

Firstly, let's pretend we agree on a few things.

- Jesus was at the very least a wise man and popular public speaker, and at least some of his sermons took place. He was one of the few willing to do that under Roman rule and oppression at the time.
- There was no television or print press at the time of his existence.
- The first Christians were members of that highly oppressed group, and most news was spread by word of mouth.
- The bible was transcribed from oral stories by mostly well meaning people.

I think we can probably agree on these points.

I'm going to present this possible explanation as a story, in order not to put too much strain on your reason molecule. If you find anything I say here impossible or extremely unlikely, please tell me what.

-------------The Life and Time of Jesus Christ---------

A man called Jesus was born in 0 AD, in a small town in the middle east. He had fairly normal parents and upbringing. The times were troubled, as the Romans demanded heavy taxes from the local Jewish leaders, oppressed their culture and political life, and treated some citizens poorly. As Jesus grew up, he became interested in the politics of the region, and was unhappy with the Roman oppression of Jewish people, and his homeland. In his 20s he spent time with the local priests and town councils, learning their ways and talking often about the Romans and what could be done.

In his early 30s, being well regarded in the local community, he headed off with some followers to the capital, to spread resistance to the Roman rule among the people. He talked to everyone he could find, about the coming kingdom of the God of the Old bible, and how time would get better, and the Jewish people would be free again, as promised. These were uneducated and superstitious times, and people were given hope by his words. In the process he gained something of a following.

As time progressed, word spread of a leader of the Jewish people, talking of resistance to Roman rule and return to the old ways. Mythical stories began to spring up. A lady named Judy told a friend about how her daughter with the bad eye could see better after hearing him speak. God must have blessed them. The friend told another person, who told another, who told another, and Judy's daughter became blind, and Jesus became her healer. With a touch. People began to rumor that he was the messiah long prophecised. Word spread ahead of him, and crowds were filled with hope and excitement, much as they do today at Benny Hinn gatherings. People swore that the sickness they had was gone the next day, the arthritis they had for years was suddenly gone. People with fevers got better, and the the healing was attributed to Jesus and the coming revolution. Those who didn't were soon forgotten, lost in the fever of the times. With each telling, the stories became more and more miraculous. Jesus was the messiah prophecized in the old holy books. He was born of a virgin. Then one day a man who trying to impress his friend after seeing a sermon, said he had seen Jesus turn water into wine, and the friend told the story in first person to another. And the story spread, embellished each time as it does with retelling. When a person heard it from two sources, they took it as confirmed. A legend had built up.

Eventually word got out to the Roman rulers, who liked to keep an eye on possible resistance and quash it. His speeches to to the local population had to stop. Jesus was brought before them, put up into a mock trial, and sentenced to crucificion, the common punishment for political enemies of the time. His supporters and followers were devastated....

------The story now splits into three possible endings. Possibility #1 is below----

....He died on the cross, and was put into a tomb. People came to visit. Three days later, his body was gone, taken out by his supporters for a traditional Jewish burial. Those who came to the tomb were suprised to find him gone.

Then, an old lady who wasn't very aware any more mentioned that Jesus had talked to her, yesterday! Her story was proclaimed to the crowd, and told at gatherings. Then another, caught up in the fever, remembered that she had seen someone who looked like Jesus, in the distance. She told her family, and they told people that their Katie had seen the messiah arisen! Before long, there were many witnesses, and the legend of this story spread. None of it was amazing, or unbelievable, not to those who had heard the story of his healings and miracles before. The rumor spread that a savior had come, who performed miracles. He had died for the Jewish people, and then transcended death. Prophecy had been fulfilled. The days of old had returned, while a new covenant was born. It emboldened the oppressed against their oppressors. It gave them courage in the face of their fear. This was theirs, and no one could take it away from them.

Years later, stories were written down about this time, firstly by one authors, and then by others who copied and added to the original story, mixing bits of memory and legend, and filling in the gaps. The New Testament was born.

--------Possibility #2------------

....Jesus was brought before them, put up into a mock trial, and sentenced to crucifiction, the common punishment for political enemies of the time. His supporters and followers were devastated....

....He died on the cross, was buried in a shallow grave, and was forgotten. People got on with their lives, but the story of Jesus, the man who had told of a new era, was sometimes told.

Years later, in a time of turmoil with their Roman oppressors, a prominent Jewish leader, and his council, decided that something was needed to bind the people together. The oral story of Jesus had credibility, and they wove together bits of the story, filling in the blanks, and describing the fulfillment of prophecy. It was added to the religious and history books of the time, as part of the history of the Jewish people. The story was later rewritten and embellished by other authors, and the New Testament was born.

----------Possibility #3-----------------

....He died on the cross, but the story of his life persisted. Some of Jesus's followers, one a prominent historian, decided that this story should be told, and it was written down in several of the prominent books of the time, without an author's name for fear of persecution by the Romans. The story was then used again and again, and added to by other authors. It was taught to children. As the decades and centuries passed, it became part of the holy book of the Jewish people, and more and more bits were added to fit the needs of the early church, and to bring the story more in line with the prophecies of Old. Eventually, through the haze of memory long forgotten, it became the Christian religion. The New Testament had been born.

[txag007]

Instead of attacking his character, why not focus on the evidence mentioned in his quote? A fragment of the gospel of Mark was found in Qumran that scholars have dated to somewhere around the middle of the first century.

In addition, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor who died in 130 A.D., mentioned in his writings that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

[txag007]

What about the first century dating of the fragments of the gospels that are still in existence today?

What about Papias writing that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew?

What about this quote from Flavius Josephus who was born in 37 A.D.: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandoned his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

And according to the Bible, it was not the Romans who had a problem with Jesus, but primarily the religious Jews of the time. Why would they create/promote false stories that they initiated the killing of their own Messiah?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that the early church founders really believed Jesus was god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe he really appeared to them alive or were they lying about that?

[txag007]

Later on? An existing fragment of the gospel of Mark has been dated to the middle of the first century. How does that fit in your theory?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the first century dating of the fragments of the gospels that are still in existence today?

What about Papias writing that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew?

What about this quote from Flavius Josephus who was born in 37 A.D.: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandoned his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

And according to the Bible, it was not the Romans who had a problem with Jesus, but primarily the religious Jews of the time. Why would they create/promote false stories that they initiated the killing of their own Messiah?

[/ QUOTE ]

what about them? what's the point you are trying to make?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
tag, you've played this game before. You present a false dilemma and attempt to force people to give up or do a ridiculous amount of pointless research.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the research pointless? Surely you haven't formed an opinion without evaluating the existing evidence?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Later on? An existing fragment of the gospel of Mark has been dated to the middle of the first century. How does that fit in your theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? I don't understand your question?

it fits perfectly with my theory...

how does my theory not allow fot that?

[txag007]

Is that enough time for legends to develop of the magnitude that you are suggesting?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that enough time for legends to develop of the magnitude that you are suggesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely, 2+ decades is more than enough time