Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Revelation to Mike Huybensz
Message-ID: <472@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 16:39:36 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.472
Posted: Mon Apr 15 16:39:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Apr-85 01:01:18 EST
References: <281@cvl.UUCP> <465@cybvax0.UUCP> <4881@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1208@topaz.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 59

In article <1208@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes:
> I have avoided (and will continue to avoid) getting into discussions about
> the plausibility of Christianity.  The arguments somehow never seem to go
> anywhere.  But I would at least like to ask those who are going to do so to
> try to take account of current scholarly views of the New Testament.
> Comments in the text, early church tradition, and the results of literary
> analysis all suggest that what you see in the NT was written down after the
> church had been in existence for several decades.  There is no agreement on
> whether there are earlier written sources behind the Gospels.  But whether
> the sources are written or verbal, the Gospels appear to be the endproduct
> of traditions developing in a number of different communities.  It is simply
> not plausible that the NT itself should be a fraud.  You may believe that
> the earliest Christian preachers were either mistaken or intentionally
> misrepresenting what happened.  But it is not plausible that the NT should
> have been concocted by a cabal and then used to convince people to become
> Christians

Since you seem to be confused about where and when the NT could be the result
of a cabal, I'll explain my hypothesis.

JC and his disciples travelled together like a travelling revival show,
working fake miracles and accepting contributions.  They comprised the cabal,
along with a number of camp followers too, like the various Marys.)
After the crucifixion, someone was selected to play resurrected Jesus for
a while.  Then the cabal split up.

When the cabal was together, everybody would know the stories, the same
way the cast of a play knows all the lines.

After the cabal split up, there would be little reason for any of the apostles
to change the stories about JC.  First, they were already proven popular.
Second, they might conflict with the beliefs instilled in previous visits
by JC or other apostles.  Followers from outside the original cabal would
likely be believers, and thus not change the stories.

Eventually, the stories got written down.

> As to the idea of a cabal, maybe I am just more credulous than you, but I
> think conscious religious fraud is less common and easier to detect than you
> do.  At least in modern times, questionable sects seem to have leaders who
> claim a direct pipeline to God, and who know all the answers.

By this standard you would certainly reject Moses.  He talked to God, and
had the answers.  He was a man of action, unlike the wishy-washy JC.

In any event, modern sects operate in a different environment than existed
at the time of Christ.  The media, the expectations of Americans, the
styles of teaching (much more direct today, with little allegory), and
a host of other differences render your comparisons invallid.

> It is unusual
> to see any group (even sincere) whose basic documents show their leaders as
> having badly misunderstood the basic principles of the religion.  The

You should read about the Mormons a bit more.  Also, I think some Hindu
texts qualify this way.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh