The Greatest Conspiracy

[saxitoxin]

"Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to William Short, August 4, 1820)

Matthew 24:23-26
23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

--> Seven years later, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in the wilderness. And he proceeds to write 50% of the books of the Bible.

[saxitoxin]

After 2,000 years, why do we not have even one single denomination that rejects the Pauline Epistles?

New denominations form at the most trivial things, at the drop of a pin. But this most significant charade has not prompted a single denomination to form around a rejection of Paul? How is that even possible without active intervention to prevent such a denomination from forming?

[Dukasaur]

I think there were some, in the early days. But they mostly got obliterated in the purges after the Nicene strategem solidified the power of the bootlickers in the palace.

[saxitoxin]

I think there were some, in the early days. But they mostly got obliterated in the purges after the Nicene strategem solidified the power of the bootlickers in the palace.

Good point.

But why haven't we seen any form since then?

[HitRed]

--> Seven years later, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in the wilderness.


Chapter and verse please.

[saxitoxin]

--> Seven years later, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in the wilderness.

Chapter and verse please.

Acts 9:3-6

3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied.
6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

It doesn't explicitly say he was in the wilderness, however, in the first century the area "near" Damascus was a transition zone between the Ghouta Oasis and arid wilderness.

Also note, that in the synoptic gospels there is no record of Jesus ever calling himself "Jesus." When asked, he always calls himself the Lord or the Son of Man. Also speaking in a thunderous, disembodied voice is a little out of character. And there's also no record in the synoptic gospels of Jesus ever intentionally causing an injury simply to prove his ability to perform miracles. Everything about Paul's encounter is entirely inconsistent with what we know about Jesus, and mostly aligns with Jesus' warning about people claiming to see him after his death.

[saxitoxin]

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
- Thomas Jefferson

My theory:
Without Paul, there is no basis for Jesusism to be anything other than a Jewish sect. Without Paul, Yahweh-worship remains off-limits to Gentiles and can't expand in any meaningful way. There are two passages in the gospels that can be used to interpret that Yahweh-worship is open to Gentiles: the tale of the Good Samaritan, and Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations. But both have been interpreted in different ways and don't offer the unambiguity of Paul's letters.

The most rock solid passage in the gospels that suggests Jesusism is open to all is the tale of the three wise men, who are obviously not Jewish. The three wise men are astrologers from "the east" meaning they're either Zorastrians or Hindus. Why would Zorastrians or Hindus come to worship the Jewish Messiah, unless, in fact, he was not the Jewish Messiah?

First century Judaism was a very simple, semi-illiterate, nomadic religion with a holy book (Old Testament / Tanack) that was largely plagiarized from Babylonian and other, older sources. The synoptic gospels in the NT are much more elaborate and complex, akin to the teachings of Zorastrianism or Hinduism. Jesus can only be seen as separate and disconnected from the primitive religion of the Jews. His references to the OT were done merely to advance that primitive race to a more advanced spiritual state in terms they could understand. Christianity is not an evolution of Judaism but a distinct, standalone religion.

Therefore, Paul's scam and confidence game is needed to maintain the false connection of Christianity to Judaism.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Is this a conspiracy only thread? I've decided that there is a conspiracy on CC for not announcing my brilliant and astounding RISK play. So henceforth, whether you nerds believe it or not, I am and forever will be, the greatest RISK player to grace this universe. You're welcome.

[jusplay4fun]

Is this a conspiracy only thread? I've decided that there is a conspiracy on CC for not announcing my brilliant and astounding RISK play. So henceforth, whether you nerds believe it or not, I am and forever will be, the greatest RISK player to grace this universe. You're welcome.

Spoken like a Corporal 1st Class that DDS is.

Username:DirtyDishSoap
Rank:Corporal 1st Class Corporal 1st Class
Score:1279

[DirtyDishSoap]

Hey now, i never tried to manipulate a system. Even if it's against me. Neither doesn't matter. You're better off just admitting I'm the greatest, and that the rest of you peons should be grateful to just suckle on my left overs. Conspiracy! CONSPIRACY!

[saxitoxin]

If today, in 2024, a man fell off a horse and hit his head on a rock and then claimed Jesus spoke to him, we would dismiss him as a lunatic. We would not allow him to add books to the Bible.

The only reason we believe Paul is because Peter vouched for him in 2 Peter. However, chronological dating and linguistic analysis now suggests it would have been impossible for Peter to write 2 Peter. It was almost certainly written in 80 AD and Peter died in 68 AD. It was also written in Greek and there's no evidence Peter - a fisherman - knew scholarly Greek. And the style of writing is different from 1 Peter.

"It is evident that the doctrine of redemption, as taught by Paul, was never preached by Jesus. Paul’s teaching is not Christ’s teaching but is, in fact, a denial of it." - Leo Tolstoy

[HitRed]

Let me know how that works out.

I come like a thief in the night. My coming will take many by surprise. I am the way that leads to eternal life.- Jesus

[saxitoxin]

Let me know how that works out.

I come like a thief in the night. My coming will take many by surprise. I am the way that leads to eternal life.- Jesus

↑
Yes, this is a good example of Pauline Christianity. Making up quotes Jesus never said and then cramming them into his mouth, despite the certainty of damnation.

Proverbs 30:5-6: "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

Deuteronomy 18:20: "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death."

Matthew 12:36: ""But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

[kentington]

This an interesting topic. I am going to think about it and reply after I look some stuff up.

I have three questions as of now though. Saxi, are you saying that minus the books written by Paul there is no salvation of the gentiles? Do you believe in the Bible, a Bible, any ‘sacred or holy’ works at all? Is this post just to pass the time or do you want a genuine conversation on the topic?

[saxitoxin]

Saxi, are you saying that minus the books written by Paul there is no salvation of the gentiles?

I think the Old Testament consists largely of pre-Judaic stories that the Israelites borrowed and layered national myths upon as they really had no sophisticated religion and had to piece theirs together by stealing bits and pieces from neighboring faiths. For instance, Moses being left adrift in a basket of reeds is plagiarized from the Legend of Sargon of Akkad and Mosaic Law is basically a dumbed-down version of the Code of Hammurabi. Chronicles of an ancient flood that predate the story of Noah exist around the world.

The essence of those stories may have a divine aspect. But the adaptations made by the Israelites to reimagine themselves as a master race don't. Therefore, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is invented for reasons purely political.

Do you believe in the Bible, a Bible, any ‘sacred or holy’ works at all?

The four canonical gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Paul was either an insane man, a scam artist, or something more sinister. If he was something more sinister, he was acting intentionally to divert and confuse Jesus followers into a modified version of the emerging Jesuism movement. Warping the words of Jesus to supposedly "allow" evangelism of Gentiles into a servant race (aligning it with the OT's view of the Israelites as a master race) that would support their efforts to subvert the Empire is consistent with that.

But if we rely only on the canon gospels, we see that Jesus rejected these aspects of the OT the Israelites introduced as part of their master race myth: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) "Man" here is originally anthropos which means a body of men. So it could be more easily understood as "not men for the Sabbath." In other words, God never created a master race of people to worship him and salvation was always accessible to all.

To be fair, this isn't my own line of thought; I've largely arrived at these conclusions by reading Thomas Jefferson's letters and Leo Tolstoy's writing on the subject of Paul.

[saxitoxin]

What if, during the 18 years of Jesus' life that are unaccounted for, he traveled East and studied with the Magi who had greeted his birth? He learned the perennial religion of man and sought to return and civilize the Israelites. But he had to encase it in a framework with which they would be familiar and so presented his teachings within the context of the Tanakh.

I just asked ChatGPT this question ...

[kentington]

What if, during the 18 years of Jesus' life that are unaccounted for, he traveled East and studied with the Magi who had greeted his birth? He learned the perennial religion of man and sought to return and civilize the Israelites. But he had to encase it in a framework with which they would be familiar and so presented his teachings within the context of the Tanakh.

I just asked ChatGPT this question ...

Don't trust chatGPT. It is just an echo chamber. I have adjusted your question to show that I wanted it to confirm a bias towards the Old Testament and not the Dhammapada (which I am actually unfamiliar with, transparency). I know your version of the question seemed to have no bias, but the fact that you are asking it to compare the New Testament towards one, suggests that you don't think it is the Old Testament. At least in my opinion.

[kentington]

"Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to William Short, August 4, 1820)

Matthew 24:23-26
23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

--> Seven years later, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in the wilderness. And he proceeds to write 50% of the books of the Bible.

I understand that take. I also don't know that Paul intended his letters to be considered scripture. We can tell that Jesus considered the Old Testament scripture. We can tell that in 2 Timothy Paul believed all scripture to be as if God had spoken it.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This was written after the Gospels, after some currently accepted New Testament books, but definitely not after 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, 1-3 John and finally Revelation.

I don't know how I feel about that honestly. I do believe the Bible, but I can't lie and say I haven't had concerns that past the Gospels how can we be sure they are God breathed? Who gets to determine that? Why are they not just considered teachings as we would from more modern theologians, like Charles Spurgeon or many others that people often quote?

[kentington]

After 2,000 years, why do we not have even one single denomination that rejects the Pauline Epistles?

New denominations form at the most trivial things, at the drop of a pin. But this most significant charade has not prompted a single denomination to form around a rejection of Paul? How is that even possible without active intervention to prevent such a denomination from forming?

Who would actively be doing that? I don't see any group being able to suppress that in current times. There are denominations within denominations. People are very quick to accept new ideas regarding religion right now. Actually, it seems like people respond better to new ideas than traditional ones.

[jusplay4fun]

"Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to William Short, August 4, 1820)

Matthew 24:23-26
23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

--> Seven years later, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in the wilderness. And he proceeds to write 50% of the books of the Bible.

I understand that take. I also don't know that Paul intended his letters to be considered scripture. We can tell that Jesus considered the Old Testament scripture. We can tell that in 2 Timothy Paul believed all scripture to be as if God had spoken it.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This was written after the Gospels, after some currently accepted New Testament books, but definitely not after 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, 1-3 John and finally Revelation.

I don't know how I feel about that honestly. I do believe the Bible, but I can't lie and say I haven't had concerns that past the Gospels how can we be sure they are God breathed? Who gets to determine that? Why are they not just considered teachings as we would from more modern theologians, like Charles Spurgeon or many others that people often quote?

Here are some answers. I will say that what I cite here is very similar to what I have read from other sources.

As with so many things in life and in history, there is an easy answer and a more complex answer to the questions posed above. The easy answer is that the canonical books of the Christian Bible were enumerated and approved by various councils, synods, and popes of the Catholic Church, beginning with the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. Presided over by Pope Damasus I, the Council of Rome first promulgated what we came to know as the canon of the Christian Bible in a document called The Decree of the Council of Rome on the Canon of Scripture. The second part of this decree, which gives a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old and the New Testament, is referred to as the “Damasine List.” Just more than a decade later in 393 A.D. a council of bishops, including St. Augustine of Hippo, affirmed the same canon of Scripture at the Synod of Hippo. The Synod of Carthage (397 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)[3] reaffirmed the canon of the Bible given at the Synod of Hippo

(...)

The earliest known attempt to define and produce copies of the Christian Bible was probably during this 350-year interim period prior to the Council of Rome. In 331, after moving to Byzantium a year earlier and renaming it Constantinople,[8] the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, commissioned a bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea, to produce fifty copies of Sacred Scripture in Greek.[9] The oldest extant copies of the Christian Bible, the Codex Vaticanus[10] and the Codex Sinaiticus[11] have been dated to the fourth century. Scholars believe they were probably among the fifty Bibles originally commissioned by Constantine, although it is disputed whether Sinaiticus was actually delivered to Constantinople.[12]

and from the beginning of this essay:

The Canon of the Bible: Who Decided What Made It In?
By Lyle J. Boudreaux|September 15th, 2024|Categories: Bible, Catholicism, Christianity, History, Timeless Essays

Despite the multitude of Christian denominations that have sprung up over the last 500 years, there seem to have been few, if any, important divisions among Christians about the authenticity of the canon of the New Testament since the Catholic Church promulgated it at the Council of Rome more than 1,600 years ago.

St. John Henry Newman, the great 19th century English churchman, scholar and convert to Catholicism, famously once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”[1] That seems like a fitting way to begin because the genesis of this essay was my hearing a Catholic convert quote the New Testament passages he references when explaining to his Protestant family and friends why he became Catholic.[2] I noticed that in the dialogue he described, all parties acknowledged the authoritativeness of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Given this common ground, it occurred to me that the more fundamental questions at issue were: 1) Where did the Bible itself come from? 2) How was it put together? And 3) who decided which books made it into the original group that came to be known as the canon of the Christian Bible?

and (...)
V. Challenges to and Variations on the Canon

I have to admit that when I first took an interest in this topic I assumed that the most furtive controversies would probably be related to debates about which books to include in the New Testament. After all, the New Testament is the part of the Bible that is new, or at least newer. Therefore, it seemed to me that the canon of the Old Testament must have been already well-established and settled by the time the New Testament came along. However, as I researched the development of the canon of Scripture, perhaps the most surprising thing that I discovered is that the most hotly debated and divisive questions regarding the canon of the Bible have been related to the part that we Christians refer to as the Old Testament.

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2024/09/canon-bible-lyle-boudreaux.html#:~:text=The%20easy%20answer%20is%20that,as%20the%20canon%20of%20the

Bottom Line:
There is very little dispute that Paul's letters should be included in the New Testament of the Bible. PERIOD.

[kentington]

My theory:
Without Paul, there is no basis for Jesusism to be anything other than a Jewish sect. Without Paul, Yahweh-worship remains off-limits to Gentiles and can't expand in any meaningful way. There are two passages in the gospels that can be used to interpret that Yahweh-worship is open to Gentiles: the tale of the Good Samaritan, and Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations. But both have been interpreted in different ways and don't offer the unambiguity of Paul's letters.

I disagree with you here. I think there is both Old and New Testament reference to the Messiah being available to Gentiles.

11 "I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,
12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness..."

Below is Matthew 12, quoting Isaiah.

18 "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.
I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
19 He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
20 a bruised reed he will not break,
a smoldering wick he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory;
21 and in his name the Gentiles will hope."

There is also the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:27

27 She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

Matthew 11:25-30 is a really good read and suggests that Jesus is offering salvation to any who are willing to accept it. There are plenty more examples I believe, but one really strong example is Matthew 22 and the parable of the wedding feast. Honestly, Jesus' mission seemed to be a repudiation of the Jews. At least somewhat.

The most rock solid passage in the gospels that suggests Jesusism is open to all is the tale of the three wise men, who are obviously not Jewish. The three wise men are astrologers from "the east" meaning they're either Zorastrians or Hindus. Why would Zorastrians or Hindus come to worship the Jewish Messiah, unless, in fact, he was not the Jewish Messiah?

First century Judaism was a very simple, semi-illiterate, nomadic religion with a holy book (Old Testament / Tanack) that was largely plagiarized from Babylonian and other, older sources. The synoptic gospels in the NT are much more elaborate and complex, akin to the teachings of Zorastrianism or Hinduism. Jesus can only be seen as separate and disconnected from the primitive religion of the Jews. His references to the OT were done merely to advance that primitive race to a more advanced spiritual state in terms they could understand. Christianity is not an evolution of Judaism but a distinct, standalone religion.

Again, I have to disagree here. Jesus says below.

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches hem will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

To me it seems pretty clear that he is not just referencing the OT, but is saying it remains. There are more scriptures that Jesus does more than reference the OT. I will search them out if interested.

Therefore, Paul's scam and confidence game is needed to maintain the false connection of Christianity to Judaism.

If Paul is running a con and any of the info about his imprisonment and beatings is to be believed, then he sure got the wrong end of that deal.

[saxitoxin]

What if, during the 18 years of Jesus' life that are unaccounted for, he traveled East and studied with the Magi who had greeted his birth? He learned the perennial religion of man and sought to return and civilize the Israelites. But he had to encase it in a framework with which they would be familiar and so presented his teachings within the context of the Tanakh.

I just asked ChatGPT this question ...

Don't trust chatGPT. It is just an echo chamber. I have adjusted your question to show that I wanted it to confirm a bias towards the Old Testament and not the Dhammapada (which I am actually unfamiliar with, transparency). I know your version of the question seemed to have no bias, but the fact that you are asking it to compare the New Testament towards one, suggests that you don't think it is the Old Testament. At least in my opinion.

That's an excellent point. Nonetheless, there are unmistakable similarities between Matthew and the Dhammapada. For example:

“In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you ..." (Matthew 7:12) | "“One should do what one teaches others to do..." (Dhammapada 159)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) | “The faults of others are easily seen, but one's own faults are hard to see.” (Dhammapada 252)

“Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy.” (Matthew 6:20) | “The wise share their accumulated wealth, and by doing so build merit that will never decay.” (Dhammapada 355)

I'd be curious to have a qualified human do this analysis and see what they come up with.

There is very little dispute that Paul's letters should be included in the New Testament of the Bible. PERIOD.

I don't contend it is a mainstream view. However, to say there is "very little" dispute is to fail to acknowledge the Ebionites - whom Duk mentioned and whom rejected Paul - as well as many very serious scholars who have also rejected the authenticity of Paul. They include prominent early Americans, as well as several notable contemporary religious scholars.

- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Paine
- Leo Tolstoy
- Friedrich Nietzsche
- George Bernard Shaw
- Robert Eisenman
- James Tabor
- Hyam Maccoby

But I admit that Big Church -- institutions with a vested, financial interest in keeping Paul as a soothsayer -- is not open to discussion of that which would put their position at risk.

[kentington]

Bottom Line:
There is very little dispute that Paul's letters should be included in the New Testament of the Bible. PERIOD.

Going to read the link and what you wrote. It may take me a bit of time though.

[mookiemcgee]

WTF is this thread? Did you all take peyote together and forget to invite me?