If Christianity was a big fraud, then then why would the bible even contain different accounts which at fist glance are contradictory. That's a pretty bad conspiracy!
"conspiracy" is putting words in people's mouth and twisting the issues.
The bible is a result of many councils (aka committees) of frequent hand picked *men*. My opinion ... they were probably all English middle aged (relatively speaking) white guys, were of the few who could read, valued their heads, and were members of the Church of England (no surprise). *One* of those groups created the King James version which resulted in many re-writes, deleted books, an the introduction of so-called errors. The point being is that the King told them what the goal was to be. And later people (more middle aged white guys) "fixed" it.
Council of Nicaea. The 1st assembly was only a few hundred years after Jesus, but I think it there that Jesus was deemed the Son of God versus just another guy that waved his hands in front of lots of people that couldn't read, and either herded sheep or fished knowing nothing else. The Council of Nicaea sorted thru a lot writings and devised an arbitrary set of ambiguous rules to filter out what writing would be *books* and what would not be "gospel".
Witnesses. Any of today's court of laws has considerable difficulty determining what, who, & when anytime there are witnesses. It is possible I suppose that the human race has de-evolved meaning become less intelligent. So perhaps today's man is not nearly as observant as those 2000 years ago. But I have not seen this used as an argument very often. So assuming the we are equal intelligence of those "then". And given that today's witnesses are no more trained observers as they could have been "then" ... not much credence can be given to the witness theory much less argue that surely they would have objected to errors in anyone's written account. Right.
Therefore, the consistency and concordance of the books of the Bible ARE no accident (al-l-lll of those middle aged white guys mentioned earlier) and *IS* by some other white guy's (a King often) directive.
The result is several versions of the Bible. In believing what the Bible says about itself, which one? What about what one version says about a different version?
Finally, to the subject of the thread, I object to
proselytizing. Which is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion (clipped from wikipedia). In particular the innocence that so-called Christians live under in the blaming of late, Islam of using the concept to convert the world to Islam.
One of my Sunday School teachers stated quite clearly that if you believe in your faith then you should be talking with and convincing others to believe in Christ. At that time I was wondering about those Methodist
sinners across town ... that where in my school class and I saw the rest of the week. THEN, I learned about... Baptists!!! OMG. Wait? What? There are Mormons? Uhhhh, Catholics? Well, clearly most of the world is doomed to Hell and I am lucky to be taught by the correct church from the correct Book.
Islam? Hindu? Please, surely Hell isn't that big.