A Massive Conspiracy Theory?

[artsylady]

"It was written over a period of about 800 years!"

Moses to John - I think more like 1500 years.

[artsylady]

I'm not sure why, but when I type in quotes, the message "undefined" comes up now and I can't read what was in the quotes that I had highlighted. Anyone know how to fix this?

Anyway, yes, humans could have made up the stories.

2. There would have been no need for humans to 'orchestrate' or fake the historical parts of the Bible, such as the reign of various kings or the times of the exile - it is just as reasonable to suppose that these aspects were recorded, by and large, accurately, although given the fact that much of the OT was transcribed from oral tradition hundreds of years after the events it describes, it's no small wonder that some dates and times are confused, or that some stories have different versions or are repeated in multiple books.

The orchestration part would come in when making the hundreds of prophesies come to pass. And undefined would people, generations later, try to manipulate everything to keep the belief going?

The first writings started thousands of years BC to about 2 thousand years ago. Because of the fact that there is so much archaeological proof to support the Biblical stories, we know that some of these stories occurred. In support of your argument, okay then, the writers did write about true events but always, for thousands of years, the many writers always involved a God that didn't actually exist. Is this possible?

3. Yes. If you're saying it's impossible for humans to intertwine real history and historical events with false gods and divine occurences, then you're pretty much ignoring the early histories of (for example) Greece. Gods were recorded to have taken a prominent role in many actual events in Greek history, and kings could and did trace their lineageback to Zeus. What differentiates the Bible is that these beliefs were codified in a holy text - and while this cannot be said of the Greek pantheon and its antics, the principle of humans imposing gods over real events for thousands of years is the same. From there, it's only one small step to writing it down. And none of this is inconsistent with the archaeological aspects of the Bible being true. The fact that Delphi exists does not mean Apollo handed out prophecies there; the fact that a spring on Mount Helicon exists does not mean Pegasus created it. Or, as perhaps a better example, the fact that a political commentator can describe the relevant cities, places and protagonists in their work does not mean that, were they to throw in a few remarks about aliens, we would be obliged to trust the latter because we could confirm the former. Just because a writer is correct in one area does not mean they are accurate automatically throughout.

I'm not saying that humans don't mix real history with their gods of the time. But as I thought I had stated (maybe not) some of the archaeology still remains a mystery as to how it was purely human. Like the Sodom and Gomorrah site with sulpher balls laying around. How did they manage to do this?

What's the difference between the Bible and other books? Those other ancient books have long been passed off as fiction yet the Bible lives on in truth to millions. Those other ancient books were written by a few during a short period in history. The Bible was written spanning a long period of history. The other books don't make prophesies. The Bible does and it is it accurate on the hundreds of prophesies it's made. The Bible was written by many men from different walks of life - while the other books were written by only the intellectuals of that particular period. Surely you must recognize huge differences.

I guess but you have to ask why they would continue into the generations the writings if the God never did exist at all. Why give Him so much credit?

4. Belief. Look at other religions. The fact that Allah doesn't exist hasn't stopped any Muslims from glorifying him lately, has it? You're presupposing that people were actively inventing a God they didn't believe in, when the opposite it true: they were writing about a God they did believe in, but who didn't exist. And at least from an athiestic perspective, people who believe have a tendency to put pretty much anything which happens down to God's will, be it good or bad - whereas without God, those things could still happen. By which I mean: the fact that you wanted your army to win a battle could not only be achieved by divine intervention. Human skill could be solely responsible, and yet to someone who believes in God and who prayed for victory, the same outcome is seen as a sign of divine intervention.

I do believe that Mohammed believed in what he was writing. He was visited by an 'angel' who scared the crap right out of him and was so afraid he was literally shaking later when he met up with his wife, who convinced him that he must write down what he was told. However, once again, Mohammed was ONE man who also came on the scene very late in the game. I have no idea why Muslims give him so much creedence, especailly when he discounts and rewrites a lot of the OT AND NT scriptures, when there's clearly archaeological proof to show that the scriptures are accurate as we have them today. I don't want to get into a debate about Islam at the moment, but while you choose to make comparisons between the Bible and the Koran, you must be able to surely see the major differences.

There are over 500 peices of Biblical archaeology that support the writings. And to date, no archaeology has proven it wrong.

5. Again, the fact that someone can write about what's in front of them and get cities right doesn't mean that their other assumptions are all correct, too. Look at the above example about the battle. Imagine two historians recorded the same event: one thought it was the will of god, and the other made no mention of religion at all. If archaeological evidence proved that the battle took place when both people said it did, that isn't actually proof that historian who mentioned God was right - it just means that, regardless of whether or not there is a god, the battle took place and had a certain outcome.

I would agree with part of this. Most of the stories were recorded only in the Bible, nowhere else, and have been shown to be true. But again, you're disecting this peice by peice when there is a bigger picture. And could humans have simply written about natural events during their time while attributing parts to a god that didn't exist? Yes. You keep saying the same thing and I keep agreeing but I want you to look at the whole picture and recognize that the Bible not only so much more expansive, accurate and had many more contributors than other 'holy books' but it also contains future events which came to pass. The bigger picture is what separates it in so many drastic ways.

6. There are unfulfilled and seemingly false prophecies in the Bible. Also note that no interpretation has been agreed on for many of them, and that in more than one instance, we're only told that a prophecy was fulfilled, not given a prophecy which we can see has subsequently come true. And for those instances, really - stating (for example) that an empire will fall is hardly prophetic. It's a fact: nothing endures forever. Sooner or later, you're going to be right. Making a claim that blah enemy will be destroyed eventually is, sooner or later, going to be true. And apart from which, name me one set of non-vague prophecies in any religion, and by 'non-vague' I mean 'unable to be twisted and applied to any old event which sort of resembled the prophecy.' No. Not specific enough to seem even halfway miraculous.

For the moment, I'll take the examples of just a few of the prophesies of the coming Messiah. Born of a virgin in Bethlehem, in the line of David, born a Jew, he would be betrayed, killed and raised again in three days. Again, just a few of the many. How did the humans orchestrate this? And remember, the Jewish people had control of the books through the centuries so Christianity would obviously be something they would not accept (as also prophesied) Now, why would men conspire to bring Jesus into the picture, a false god who would himself be killed and the men who followed him most closely would be killed. Did they all die for what they knew was a lie in order to bring what they called 'truth' to the world?

And what were the 'false prophesies', that you speak of?

So while the Biblical writers, many of whom didn't know each other, spoke of the same God who loved them and wanted them to come to know Him. What kind of conspiracy theory is this? Especially knowing the prophesies concerning the Messiah wouldn't come until a thousand years later? How could humans orchestrate such a catastrophic lie spanning thousands of years and include prophesies?

7. You're ignoring belief again. Once people believe, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong: they'll perpetuate it. If they are wrong, it isn't a conspiracy theory - just a falsehood. Imagine I tell you that I have a sister. You tell ten other people, who tell their friends, too. But if I lied or was wrong myself, the fact that you're all telling a falsehood isn't a conspiracy theory. And if I never correct you, then the fact taht people 200 years later think I had a sister is hardly a great feat of deception on behalf of everyone who took me at my word - it was just that they, too, were decieved, with nobody left to unveil the deception.

Look at the apostles. Before the resurrection, they were regular humans like you are, questioning the fact that Jesus was who he said he was. They were doubtful in many instances and especially when it came to Jesus arrest. However, after the resurrection, after watching him die and become alive again, they were changed men. They willingly preached fearlessly, risking jail and eventually enduring arrest torture and death. I would never risk even a jail sentence to continue a beleif that you had a sister, yet these men risked and lost it all for their beliefs. Do you think they really must have beleived? And it's not like their leader Jesus was around to brainwash them. He left the earth just days after the ressurrection. The apostles were also witness to that event. So years later, they're still going on preaching and teaching while Christianity is made illegal and punishable by death to the lions.

Imagine I make a prophecy about someone who'll save my people, and someone comes along claiming to be that person. If I hadn't written the prophecy, would they ever have shown up? The fact of the matter is that when prophecies exist, they can seem to come true because people work to fulfill them, but that doesn't mean anyone ever saw the future.

"people work to fulfill them"?? So you do believe humans must have orchestrated some of these events.

[Floatingaxe]

Click on the "defined" in the box, erase it and paste what you want to quote. Then I think you enter, and it will come up on your post. I have had periods where this is the only way to quote. Don't know why, but it comes and goes.

[Floatingaxe]

But the gospel authors very well could have placed their savior god's birth in a certain city or town. The insertion of this census is ridiculous in itself. Why would an emperor make people go back to the land of their ancient ancestors? This would cause mass chaos throughout the land. Not including on how some of the people would know these distant relatives... They were called to make a stupid journey, no telling how long it would take. And what is the purpose? Why not just take a census of the people in the town they live in? It doesn't make any sense? Can you see any fabrication here?

No.

[Guest Biblicist]

If MAN wrote the Bible, wouldn't we come out to be a better species? The Bible says we are sinners, the lowest of the low, not even worthy of life. If I wrote a book about myself, my friends and family, I'd try to make us look better, not worse! Unless of course, it was the TRUTH! Hmmm. . .

Since the Bible clearly states it is the inspired word of God, God breathed, and that it is all true and it is ALL true. Not just parts, the WHOLE THING!

So what we have is a book that claims to be the word of God, 100% true and makes man look bad? Doesn't' sound like a conspiracy to me.

This is, of course, exactly what happens in cults or non-believers. They rewrite what God says about us, and about Himself to make man look better and God come out as some sort of Bully or "huge child with an ant hill and magnifying glass."

What we need to do is accept the singluar authority of Scripture.

[systemstrike_7]

If MAN wrote the Bible, wouldn't we come out to be a better species? The Bible says we are sinners, the lowest of the low, not even worthy of life. If I wrote a book about myself, my friends and family, I'd try to make us look better, not worse! Unless of course, it was the TRUTH! Hmmm. . .

Since the Bible clearly states it is the inspired word of God, God breathed, and that it is all true and it is ALL true. Not just parts, the WHOLE THING!

So what we have is a book that claims to be the word of God, 100% true and makes man look bad? Doesn't' sound like a conspiracy to me.

This is, of course, exactly what happens in cults or non-believers. They rewrite what God says about us, and about Himself to make man look better and God come out as some sort of Bully or "huge child with an ant hill and magnifying glass."

What we need to do is accept the singluar authority of Scripture.

Could people with authority not have included the fact that we are fallen to help justify their own mistakes?

[artsylady]

Second Eve:

Post 13 was meant as a response to you but I was having major problems with my quote button. Still am actually.

Thanks FloatingAxe for the info.

Anyway, I went back and revised it so that it makes more sense now.

[artsylady]

The reason I've referred to Christianity as a conspiracy theory is that if you don't believe it to be truth, then it must have been the most massive conspiracy ever to happen. Spanning so many years? Involving so many people? Over so many generations? Who didn't know each other? This is bigger than the Illuminati or JFK or anything else, that's for sure. But the best question that I still haven't seen a logical answer for is "why"?

but the gospel authors very well could have placed their savior god's birth in a certain city or town.

So you think it was the writers of the gospel (like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul who was a killing killing Roman, etc) who started the conspiracy? I mean the Christian or the latter half of the massive conspiracy theory?

Why would an emperor make people go back to the land of their ancient ancestors?

It was Caesar Augustus while Quirinius was governing Syria. And why? Same reason why the government wants to know everything about us today. Money. Taxes. Hard to believe I know.

This would cause mass chaos throughout the land. Not including on how some of the people would know these distant relatives... They were called to make a stupid journey, no telling how long it would take. And what is the purpose? Why not just take a census of the people in the town they live in? It doesn't make any sense? Can you see any fabrication here?

Well they didn't have mail or phones back then to do the census. And we know from the historian Josephus Flavius that Quirinius also later had a census. That's the beauty of archaeology once again. Thank God Israel took back the nation so that in the last days all of this could be dug up! Of course, that was part of his plan.... And of course, the prophesies made it clear that this would happen.

You're right. We cannot make up someone who is holy in all his actions. Is jealousy a holy action? Why would God have a chosen people? This doesn't seem fair.

Because those chosen people would carefully guard the scriptures and later bring us a saviour from the line of David. They did a pretty good job, you'd have to admit, right? I mean, even if you don't beleive in Jesus as the Saviour, you do realize that the Jewish people did do a remarkable job of preserving the books. You should look sometime at the attempts to exterminate the books by various leaders as well as of course, various attempts throughout history to exterminate the Jews. It's amazing they are still living at all. I would say God chose them wisely.

There are so many illogical things I could bring up, but I will stop there. It's a common instance of painting the bullseye around the arrow.

Not really. But the fact that the first people to witness Jesus coming out of the tomb were two women? You're right. Illogical for a conspiracy theory when the witness of women was not widely accepted at the time.

Or to have Jesus conceived by an unmarried virgin??? How scandelous! How on earth did these conspirators expect that God would bring a saviour into the world in such a way! What were these conspirators thinking anyway???

Yeah, this conspiracy theory makes less and less sense all the time doesn't it?

[artsylady]

So what we have is a book that claims to be the word of God, 100% true and makes man look bad? Doesn't' sound like a conspiracy to me.

Yeah, the writers sure didn't exalt themselves at all, did they? Even the kings who wrote didn't do so.

I had another thought about the Bible having been written in three languages. So not only by many men spanning many generations, there were three languages as well. It just gets more and more complex a conspiracy all the time, doesn't it?

[systemstrike_7]

So you think it was the writers of the gospel (like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul who was a killing killing Roman, etc) who started the conspiracy? I mean the Christian or the latter half of the massive conspiracy theory?

Ok, geez. Its not a freaking conspiracy theory or anything. It isn't an elaborate hoax. They are merely myths of a certain people. You never even answered my question. So please, try again.

It was Caesar Augustus while Quirinius was governing Syria. And why? Same reason why the government wants to know everything about us today. Money. Taxes. Hard to believe I know.

Once again, you failed to answer my objection. Why would they make the person go back to their ancient ancestors birth place? There is no good reason for this. They could have much easily just taken the census with the people staying in the town they lived. Please stop breaking up my posts and answering questions out of context.

Well they didn't have mail or phones back then to do the census. And we know from the historian Josephus Flavius that Quirinius also later had a census. That's the beauty of archaeology once again. Thank God Israel took back the nation so that in the last days all of this could be dug up! Of course, that was part of his plan.... And of course, the prophesies made it clear that this would happen.

What? How does this change my objection? He still had them make a stupid journey across who knows how many miles just to take the census in a different location, than if they would have just stayed in the town they lived. The soldiers still had to go from town to town, no matter where they put the people. It would have been more logical to cram everyone into a barn and then count them, than to make EVERYONE travel to the land of their ancestors birth. And yes, Quirinius did have another census, but did he do it in the same fashion?

Because those chosen people would carefully guard the scriptures and later bring us a saviour from the line of David. They did a pretty good job, you'd have to admit, right? I mean, even if you don't beleive in Jesus as the Saviour, you do realize that the Jewish people did do a remarkable job of preserving the books. You should look sometime at the attempts to exterminate the books by various leaders as well as of course, various attempts throughout history to exterminate the Jews. It's amazing they are still living at all. I would say God chose them wisely.

But this brings up the question of why did God make a saviour necessary? What if God made everyone his chosen people? That would be a little more fair wouldn't it? The Tanakh is a Jewish creation and it is heavily biased in the Jewish direction. What if God treated everyone as He did the Jews? I bet alot of people would have been saved from hell. It doesn't make any sense.

Not really. But the fact that the first people to witness Jesus coming out of the tomb were two women? You're right. Illogical for a conspiracy theory when the witness of women was not widely accepted at the time.

Or to have Jesus conceived by an unmarried virgin??? How scandelous! How on earth did these conspirators expect that God would bring a saviour into the world in such a way! What were these conspirators thinking anyway???

Yeah, this conspiracy theory makes less and less sense all the time doesn't it?

Actually, a virgin or miraculous birth was common among the mystery religions of the time. And as I said before, it isn't a conspiracy theory. Not once did I ever say it was. You took many of my posts and answered them out of context thinking you were doing something productive. Well, I hate to say, but your replies didn't add up.

And about the women witnessing the empty tomb, the original ending to Mark's gospel stops after saying, "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Interesting, no?