Board index ‹ Jesus

[Lucky]

This isn’t exactly a super well thought out idea yet, but I’d like to discuss this possibility. What if there was basically conspiracy among Jesus and the twelve apostles? This conspiracy was that they wanted to bring about change in the Jewish world. They didn’t want to follow Jewish laws anymore, and they wanted to instead follow their own laws. In the end, this is what got Jesus killed. After his death the twelve apostles decided to lay low for a while and then invent the story that Jesus was really the son of God, in other words, they wrote the bible. Their motive was political change, and a lot of them ended up dying for it, not unlike a lot of political activists throughout history. Perhaps they realized that this was simply the best way to compete with an all-powerful but inactive god who made rules they didn't like.

Personally I don’t like the concept of conspiracy, but every religion calls the other religions some sort of conspiracy… let’s talk about this as a possibility. Presented with this proposal, what arguments would you have against such a conspiracy?

[Right and Might]

That’s an interesting question, I kind of enjoy these hypotheticals. Thanks for asking it. Just spit-balling here:

What happened to the “real” account of Jesus? What stopped thousands of Jews from speaking out or writing down the “real” story?

Christianity was built off a group of people that worked against oppression, I don’t see it catching on if they somehow oppressed and silenced thousands of people who knew the truth. “Love your neighbor, be kind, but if you see any Jews telling lies about Jesus, be sure to handle them, yeah?”

What’s the deal with Paul?

He was a Jew that seemed quite content to kill these rebellious Christians, but swapped sides? What made him change his mind to join the resistance, be thrown into prison repeatedly, and become the personal mastermind behind writing letters and fabricating a story? (I imagine since we are arguing that it’s all made up, and since Paul wrote the first known letters, he had to be there pretty early on and help brainstorm, right?)

The disciples painted themselves as morons.

If the apostles were lying conspirators, it seems weird they went to such lengths to make themselves look foolish in the Gospels. Time and time again, they were seen misunderstanding Jesus, arguing about petty things, were unaware that Jesus was God, they betrayed him, and were constantly afraid even when he was with them. Why not make themselves look more appealing, trustworthy, or even heroic?

They seemed counterproductive

Coupling with the above point, the first people to see Jesus risen from the grave were women. Women were considered so untrustworthy, their testimonies weren’t even admissible in court in this time period. I’m actively working against myself by claiming this, it hurts my credibility.

The NT doesn’t actually seem to help overthrow Jewish laws.

By and large, Jesus demanded more than the Jewish laws required. Don’t kill someone? Nope, Jesus said don’t even hate someone. Tithe 10%? Jesus seemed to advocate giving a lot more than that. Don’t have sex outside marriage? No, don’t even fantasize about it. Paul even goes so far as to say we shouldn’t ignore the law in Romans 3:31.

Off the top of my head, the best argument seems to be that they successfully got rid of the old atonement process of sacrificing, plus some other ceremonial laws. That seems an odd thing to rebel against though. “Man, I’m so tired of raising animals to sacrifice and not mixing my fabrics, I think I’ll scheme up a big story and risk my life to get rid of that, it’s such a pain.” Or maybe they just wanted less strict Sabbaths?

Who’d they get help from? How’d it become so large before it even started?

Most, if not all, of the apostles were believed to be illiterate. They’d likely need scribes, Aramaic to Greek translators, and historians to help create “fulfilled prophecies” and plug plot holes. They also listed a lot of people by name in the text, pretty risky in my opinion, as every new detail leaves room for someone to call them out.

Why not just leave?

If they didn’t like Jewish laws and clearly didn’t believe in Yahweh (since they had no desire to follow anything) why not just leave? Why would they want to create new fake religious practices that they also didn’t believe in? Wouldn’t it be easier to say Jesus abolished everything, or to just go somewhere else?

[Salt Lick]

Two people can barely keep a lie, let alone act out, a major falsehood. Twelve people doing so? That's absurd.

Moreover, early Christians––and many of the Apostles––were martyred while spreading the teachings. Would you die to spread a lie? Maybe YOU would. But would all of your co-conspirators? Doubtful.

[Lucky]

> Two people can barely keep a lie, let alone act out, a major falsehood. Twelve people doing so? That's absurd.

Somewhat fair, but also sort of unfair. Politicians lie all the time, and their supporters believe them. It's not impossible.

> Moreover, early Christians––and many of the Apostles––were martyred while spreading the teachings. Would you die to spread a lie? Maybe YOU would. But would all of your co-conspirators? Doubtful.

That was the end result, but they didn't know that would happen to them, right? Maybe they thought they were going to start up a church and gets lots of money, which is exactly what did happen.

[Salt Lick]

1. Politicians spin truth and manipulate fact. You're proposing a conspiracy, which is vastly different.

2. Martyrs died without resisting their killers and while still proclaiming the truth of the Gospel. Seems unlikely to me that they'd do so in order to make unknown future generations rich.

What you're claiming isn't that absurd, but the way you're claiming it is (no offense meant). The idea of a conspiracy is too complicated and convoluted. How about this instead: Yes, the New Testament and the Gospel in particular is absolutely a political document because the teachings of Christ were religio-political. The Apostles died because they believed in the religio-political mission of Christ to reform the corrupted religious and political practices of the time––remember, Christ was not only fighting against Jewish religionists who he believed were hypocrites and profiteers, but he was also fighting against the Roman political and religious empire that ruled over israel. And to make it even more complicated, he was opposed to the alliance between some Jewish elite and the Romans.

[jimwalton]

J. Warner Wallace, a detective in the L.A. area, writes about what makes for a successful conspiracy. He says there are 5 attributes of successful conspiracies:

1. The lowest possible number of co-conspirators. The larger the number, the great plausibility someone will break rank.
2. The shortest possible amount of time to have to hold the conspiracy together. The more time elapses, the greater the chance holes will start to show.
3. Excellent communication between conspirators, over both large and small details. Lies tend the change with pressure, and so communication helps to hold all the lies together.
4. Family members are better at conspiracy than friends, who are better than those who have gathered together for whatever reason. The stronger the family, the better. The stronger the friendship, they have half a chance.
5. Little or no pressure to confess. As was said in the movie "Zero Dark Thirty": "In the end, everybody breaks. It's biology." The greater the pressure, the greater the chance that the conspiracy will fall apart.

Now, if we apply these attributes to the 12, we discover that the odds of them pulling off a conspiracy is highly unlikely and implausible.

1. There were 11 of them.
2. They have to hold the conspiracy together for 60 years.
3. They have little communication with each other because they were spread out all the way from Rome to India.
4. They were not related to each other except for a few. In addition, they were not even of the same worldview (a tax collector in with Jews, a Zealot vs. a tax collector). The chance they would hold a conspiracy together over the years through thick and thin is not plausible.
5. There was huge pressure to recant and confess their conspiracy. Their lives were threatened, and there's evidence that some (and perhaps most) of them lost their lives guarding "the lie."

[Lucky]

First, "James "Jim" Warner Wallace is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist."

lol

> The lowest possible number of co-conspirators. The larger the number, the great plausibility someone will break rank. The shortest possible amount of time to have to hold the conspiracy together. The more time elapses, the greater the chance holes will start to show. Excellent communication between conspirators, over both large and small details. Lies tend the change with pressure, and so communication helps to hold all the lies together. Family members are better at conspiracy than friends, who are better than those who have gathered together for whatever reason. The stronger the family, the better. The stronger the friendship, they have half a chance. Little or no pressure to confess. As was said in the movie "Zero Dark Thirty": "In the end, everybody breaks. It's biology." The greater the pressure, the greater the chance that the conspiracy will fall apart.

What proof is there that there were actually twelve people who wrote the bible? Solves the numbers thing and the communication thing.

> They have to hold the conspiracy together for 60 years.

Or they make the conspiracy after the fact. Solves the pressure thing and shortens the length of time.

> They were not related

Actually...

> There was huge pressure to recant and confess their conspiracy. Their lives were threatened, and there's evidence that some (and perhaps most) of them lost their lives guarding "the lie."

Supposing they were real and that the pressure was ever present. It's likely that the laws that had them killed wouldn't have moved until they actually gained significant power. It's not like they went around kill anyone who said anything about magic or gods.

[jimwalton]

> First, "James "Jim" Warner Wallace is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. lol.

The point of significance is not whether Wallace is a Christian and an apologist, but whether he is conveying accurate information.

> What proof is there that there were actually twelve people who wrote the bible? Solves the numbers thing and the communication thing.

There were actually 4 Gospel writers, and 11 surviving apostles after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The corroborating evidence is mixed.

* James, John, and Peter are fairly certain.
* Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot there is a small amount of tradition about them, varying in its reliability.
* Little to nothing is known about Matthew.

The Gospels were purported to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The case for authorship is highly debated. It's intriguing that no one would really think to attribute Gospels to Matthew, Mark, and Luke if they were going to put a pseudonym on them. There would be no value in that. I have examined the evidence for authorship and find that arguments for Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn more persuasive than the arguments again.

> Or they make the conspiracy after the fact.

History tells the story differently. The text of 1 Cor. 15.3-5 has been examined by scholars of all stripes, cynical and believer, atheist and Christian, skeptical and apologist. It has been deemed to have been written no more than 2-5 years after Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, proving that the teaching of Jesus's resurrection ("the conspiracy" in your vernacular) was well formed and public very early on. We simply cannot plausibly assert that they made the conspiracy after the fact (your comment pertaining to my "hold[ing] the conspiracy together for 60 years"). Historians and scholars agree that they held the story together for that length of time.

> "They were not related" Actually...

I mentioned that a few of them were. James and John were brothers, as were Andrew and Peter. That's all.

James is recorded in the Bible as having been executed by Herod Agrippa in AD 44, long before Christians gain any significant power (his death is mentioned by Clement of Rome, AD 30-100). Peter was verifiable martyred by Nero in the mid-60s, again long before Christians had gained any significant power. We just don't have enough information about any of the other apostles to know reliably when they were martyred, so claims can't be made in one direction or the other.

> It's not like they went around kill anyone who said anything about magic or gods.

Christians were deemed to be enemies of the state and a dangerous element in the empire. The works of Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius give us that information, as well as the acts of Claudius (who persecuted Druids, Jews, and Christians) and Nero (extensive persecution of Christians).

[Lucky]

> There were actually 4 Gospel writers, and 11 surviving apostles after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The corroborating evidence is mixed.

> James, John, and Peter are fairly certain. Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot there is a small amount of tradition about them, varying in its reliability. Little to nothing is known about Matthew

Neat. What is the evidence btw?

> It's intriguing that no one would really think to attribute Gospels to Matthew, Mark, and Luke if they were going to put a pseudonym on them. There would be no value in that.

Straw man. I never said they put a pseudonym on them.

> History tells the story differently. The text of 1 Cor. 15.3-5 has been examined by scholars of all stripes, cynical and believer, atheist and Christian, skeptical and apologist. It has been deemed to have been written no more than 2-5 years after Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, proving that the teaching of Jesus's resurrection ("the conspiracy" in your vernacular) was well formed and public very early on.

Well first, 2-5 years is plenty of time to make up a story... Second, I'd love to hear who those scholars are and do more research. Where did you find these opinions?

> I mentioned that a few of them were. James and John were brothers, as were Andrew and Peter. That's all.

I mean... less people make for a better conspiracy right? I feel like that's not necessarily true btw. I feel like if you have a good enough cause, then people are willing to lie for it.

> James is recorded in the Bible as having been executed by Herod Agrippa in AD 44, long before Christians gain any significant power (his death is mentioned by Clement of Rome, AD 30-100). Peter was verifiable martyred by Nero in the mid-60s, again long before Christians had gained any significant power. We just don't have enough information about any of the other apostles to know reliably when they were martyred, so claims can't be made in one direction or the other.

Where are the sources behind this stuff? I have heard that a lot of this may actually just be legend. A lot of cities wanted to be associated with a saint, so they came up with a story about one of the apostles.

> Christians were deemed to be enemies of the state and a dangerous element in the empire. The works of Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius give us that information, as well as the acts of Claudius (who persecuted Druids, Jews, and Christians) and Nero (extensive persecution of Christians).

You know, from what I'm seeing, there wasn't very serious persecution of Christians until much later. Nero was the first, but I don't see what he did, other than supposedly killing killing peter and paul. Here's the wiki page on it.

Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul The first text to suggest that Nero ordered the execution of an apostle is a letter by Clement to the Corinthians traditionally dated to around 96 A.D.[124]:123– The apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, a Christian writing from the 2nd century, says, "the slayer of his mother, who himself (even) this king, will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands"; this is interpreted as referring to Nero.[125]

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275–339) was the first to write explicitly that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero.[126] He states that Nero's persecution led to Peter and Paul's deaths, but that Nero did not give any specific orders. However, several other accounts going back to the 1st century have Paul surviving his two years in Rome and travelling to Hispania, before facing trial in Rome again prior to his death.[127]

Peter is first said to have been crucified upside-down in Rome during Nero's reign (but not by Nero) in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 200).[128] The account ends with Paul still alive and Nero abiding by God's command not to persecute any more Christians.

By the 4th century, a number of writers were stating that Nero killed Peter and Paul.[129]

So going by this... Clement of Rome sounds super Christian and cryptic on purpose (to avoid persecution?), and in reality it looks like someone just came up with the legend, then it spread into rumor, and by the 4th century they were basically "confirming" it... but it looks like a legend to me.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the discussion.

> What is the evidence btw? (about the apostles)

* There is extrabiblical evidence for the execution of James in Clement of Rome.
* The evidence for Peter's martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more.
* The evidence for John is Polycrates (end of 2nd c.), Irenaeus (AD 180), and possibly Papias.
* The evidence for the others is, as I said, a small amount of tradition, varying in its reliability.

> Strawman. I never said they put a pseudonym on them.

I never claimed you said that, nor was my argument a straw man. It wasn't even an argument. It was a tidbit of information that was interesting, but not part of my case.

> Well first, 2-5 years is plenty of time to make up a story

You were arguing that such stories could have been made up much much later. My argument was that they were established within the first 5 years. Of course 2-5 years is plenty of time to make up a story; so is 2-5 minutes. But the fact is that there was a widespread narrative of Jesus physically rising from the dead within 2-5 years of the resurrection, arguing against your point that such things were part of a later-century conspiracy.

> Second, I'd love to hear who those scholars are and do more research. Where did you find these opinions?

Gary Habermas, Gerd Theissen, Gert Ludemann, Annette Merz, Charles Koester, Richard Burridge and Graham Gould, James Dunn, Michael Goulder, Hays, Herschel Shanks and Witherington, Alexander Wedderburn, Norman Geisler, Mike Licona, Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, and the Jesus Seminar.

> I mean... less people make for a better conspiracy right?

It's not fewer people. It's still 11 people, just that 4 of them are related (though James was executed in AD 44). The point is that none of them ever recanted the story, from the first death in AD 44 until the last (possibly in the 90s).

> Where are the sources behind this stuff?

See above.

> Nero

The extent of Christian persecution under Nero is debated. It is Tacitus who wrote that Nero engaged in wholesale persecution of Christians to blame them for the fire of Rome.

* Clement of Rome (AD 96): Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 5
* Ignatius (AD 100): Epistle to the Romans, indicates Peter's presence in Rome at the time
* Dionysius of Corinth (171): "You (Pope Soter) have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."
* Irenaeus (180): writes that Peter served the church in Rome
* Tertullian (195): "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, ie. by being beheaded)."

Doesn't sound like legend to me.