DEBUNKING THE CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Randy Carson]

Many people believe that the Apostles knew that Jesus had not really risen from the dead and that they fabricated the accounts of his resurrection. Known as the Conspiracy Theory, this claim, if true, would mean that the Apostles engaged in a secret plan to preach publicly that Jesus had risen from the dead while knowing privately that his resurrection had never happened...

We have looked at the five factors that contribute to the success of a conspiracy, and we have seen that while it is possible that a group could successfully conspire to preach falsely that Jesus had been raised from the dead., the fact that none of the five factors seems to apply the Apostles suggests that it would be highly unlikely that the group would be able to take a secret of such great magnitude to their graves. That they did just that indicates that it is more probable than not that the Apostles were telling the truth concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus.

Randy, the 'conspiracy theory' argument is one that is pretty infrequently employed by those trying to refute 'resurrection' claims as there are a few more elegant, parsimonious explanations out there that carry more weight:

1. Jesus didn't exist
2. none of the biblical account is true
3. Jesus wasn't really dead

Since you singled out this argument, I'd counter:

1. that a dozen or so people is a small enough number to be consistent with maintaining a conspiracy (as described in your rules); remember that the audience was a credulous, ill-educated, superstitious population, living in a time when word-of-mouth was considered a reliable way for information to be cascaded and little was written. You claimed that there could be >500 co-conspirators but your only source for that is the bible and since the biblical accounts can't be trusted, we don't know how many conspirators there might have been. Maybe the Apostles themselves never existed..?

2. the length of time for which a conspiracy theory needs to be maintained is dependent on how long it takes for it to be generally accepted and on the effectiveness of the investigative tools which might uncover the it. I'd suggest that due to my outline in point 1, the amount of time would be pretty short.

3. Communication between conspirators is only needed if the story changes or if the the conspirators are subject to the same investigation by a single authority. Since there was plenty of time for the Apostles to get their story straight (assuming they existed as described by the bible, that is...) and the group was never under scrutiny, only individuals, no communication was needed at all. Even if one of the conspirators were to break under questioning, all the others would need to do is to claim of the authorities "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they...".

4. Familial connections are secondary to the group-investment in the conspiracy: if there's much to be lost as a result of the conspiracy coming to light, so the conspirators will be more likely to maintain the conspiracy. Also, much research has been done in to the bonds created during a variety of religious indoctrination methods where familial bonds are completely replaced. In fact, didn't Jesus teach that his followers should love god (sic. him) more than they should love their families?

5. The information we have regarding the amount of pressure under which the Apostles came originates from the bible. Since the bible can't be trusted as an accurate source...

So, your alternatives are:

1. Mythicism (which atheist scholar Bart Ehrman flatly rejects as laughable);
2. Biblical error (which he also generally rejects);
3. The Swoon Theory (which is weaker than the Conspiracy Theory).

If you take the time to read Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?, you will learn that while Ehrman (and others) reject the supernatural resurrection of Jesus, two things they do NOT reject are the existence of Jesus and the historical value of six gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Peter).

[Randy Carson]

Many people believe that the Apostles knew that Jesus had not really risen from the dead and that they fabricated the accounts of his resurrection

.

How can we discuss if the apostles were being dishonest or truthful when you haven't provided proof that they existed?

Tacitus references the death of the apostle James.

And why do you believe that you cannot accept the four canonical gospels as well as the Gospels of Thomas and Peter as historical sources? Bart Ehrman does.

Have you done some research that he has not done?

[Exian]

Sure. But it's not the slam-dunk that mythicists and other skeptics believe it to be. This realization enables a more open-minded person to say, "Damn, that's a good argument...perhaps I should take a second look at the Christian argument."

That damn near anything is more likely than a resurection isn't a slam dunk!?!

[Randy Carson]

He forgets their existence is part of the claim.

The claim. The claim can't prove the claim.

We've told him this stuff a million times, he's clearly not interested in honest debate. I have no idea what he's trying to achieve at all, actually. Most of us said we'd be maltheists if he somehow convinced us Yahweh was real.

I mean, ooooh, he's really scary, if you have to work this hard to even prove his stupid son did some stuff in the distant past.

Where did you earn your PhD, rob?

As Ehrman points out,

"Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause."

Perhaps you should take that pause right about now.

[Randy Carson]

What is your explanation for the five minimal facts (accepted by atheist and theist scholars alike) which we examined here?

I think you need to stick to the common definition of fact instead of your own made up one.

G'day.

So, you have nothing. Gotcha.

[brewer]

Wow, notice that it took only one additional post to change from "five factors" to "five facts". You naughty monkey. 

Is this resurrection day? Seen some necro posts, Randy is back.

You are not paying attention.

In the the thread, https://atheistforums.org/thread-34162.html, I presented five "minimal facts" accepted by even atheist scholars.

In this thread, I have presented five factors necessary for maintaining a conspiracy.

Although both threads feature five elements, the five facts and the five factors are two different lists.

No, it's not that I'm not paying attention, I'm not paying attention to you or your prior threads.

You can post and debate and argue till hell freezes over (hell added for your benefit not mine). You'll never be right. You'll never prove it (maybe to yourself, certainly not to me). Go away until you have irrefutable evidence. To date you have given none.

When you continue on and on it only supports that you are delusional. Ever heard this definition of insanity? Repeating the same behavior over and over and expecting a different result. I'd suggest you seek help but I believe your idea of help would be a priest and the delusion simply reinforced.

I believe that responding to you here only reinforces your delusions (fantasy and grandeur). I'm going to stop, I hope that others here will also. To continue is simply cruel. It's akin to kicking a puppy that comes every time you call it.

Goodbye.

PS: How's your buddy PiousPaladin?

[Randy Carson]

Many people believe that the Apostles knew that Jesus

Who, fuckhead? 

I'm tired of your strawman shit.  Name your sources or shut the fuck up.  Let's see how far you get after Acharya S.

Charming as ever, Minimalist. Have you contacted your parish priest to schedule your confession, yet? You can be reconciled to the Church quickly.

As for your question, are you asking me to name mythicists who claim that the apostles simply made the whole thing up?

We could start with about 60% of the members of this forum according to a little poll which you guys did amongst yourselves some time back...then we could probably add Carrier, Price, Fitzgerald and numerous others.

Ehrman and Tim O'Neill have both called them out.

[Exian]

So what if all these scholars believe he's was an actual human being? That's besides your point, which is that this particular human being somehow came back to life, and that that's the most likely occurrence, given that people said so and his tomb was empty.

Do less talking about scholars, and more proving that a resurrection isn't silly.

[Longhorn]

Charming as ever, Minimalist. Have you contacted your parish priest to schedule your confession, yet? You can be reconciled to the Church quickly.

Said the naughty little protestant....teehee

[Randy Carson]

I think Randy went online in search of more bullshit to throw at us after his Word document of the same ran out. It is good exercise to younger atheists learn the playing chess with a pigeon allegory.

Yup.  It definitely appears as though Randy thinks his five 'facts' argument is his magic bullet, and spent some time away attempting to find another way to twist it so we accept it.  Typical apologist BS, having a conclusion they want to push and working backwards from there.

Actually, no. I was just enjoying some downtime away from all the stupidity. But I was reading.

No, the problem with you and your cohorts here is that you have not actually been able to refute the five facts accepted by professional NT scholars, and this leads me to wonder what alternative theories are most popular among unthinking atheists today.

So far, in this very thread, I have seen Mythicism and the Swoon Theory offered as alternatives.

By far, Mythicism seems to be the most popular, and I think this is because it doesn't require much real effort on the part of its adherents...all you have to do is to put your fingers in your ears while saying "Lalalalalalalalalala..." whenever substantive discussions that occupy more learned men come up.