A Massive Conspiracy Theory?

[The Lorax]

The Bible codes. I didn't get them a whole lot of thought because I heard that the same kinds of codes can be found in other books of literature until I recently heard more about longer codes that have been discovered.

Typology and numerology are generally bogus. You can find patterns in anything if you look long enough. That's my first instinct, but if you have something compelling then I'd certainly like to see it.

I would actually like to research this more in depth when I have some time to see when the prophesies of Christ were written in comparison to the prophesies of Krishna, etc.

Me too. If only I had the time.

The oral tradition part is what I do have a problem with. You know the old telephone game and how reliable that is. And, If it wasn't written down, it's easy to say, "well, you know, the prophets told us this would happen hundreds of years ago. they said so." "well, is there anything written down?" "No, but I'm sure my grandfather spoke of this..". See the problem?

I do see the problem, but writings are not necessarily exempt from this problem. The same thing can happen to a document if it is transcribed over and over again by different people.

What I'm saying is that the atheism teaching that is included in hinduism contradicts their 'many gods' teachings. Both can be found in the Hindu religion.

Where did you get the idea that Hindus are atheist? Go and ask a Hindu if they are an atheist and tell me what they say. Or look it up. Perhaps you are confused with the East's everything / nothing dichotomy. Sometimes they see many gods as one god and one as many. Or all gods as none. It's strange and confusing, to say the least, but it's not the same as atheism. And it's a cultural tradition, not an accidental contradiction.

If satan was to one or two or three horrible religions, like blatant satan worship where people are sacrficed, he is worshipped and people are killed, hated, etc, how much more attractive would Christianity look?

Truth and good stuff have to be mixed in with the lie. All he has to do is point people to a feel-good, loving religion that points people away from the truth of JC as the son of God and saviour.

But so many religions aren't all that feel-good and loving.

Do you think celibacy and fasting are fun and enjoyable? Most people don't think so, yet most religions practice practice them in some ritual or role. Almost every religion has some class of monk or nun who takes an oath to refrain from pleasure. This seems neither Satanic nor feel-good. It just doesn't fit your explanation. Many religious traditions persist in spite of their not-fun, not-pleasurable nature.

[artsylady]

I do see the problem, but writings are not necessarily exempt from this problem. The same thing can happen to a document if it is transcribed over and over again by different people.

However we don't find this. We find that scriptures have been meticulously copied, when we find things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and recently an ancient copy of Leviticus.

QUOTE

What I'm saying is that the atheism teaching that is included in hinduism contradicts their 'many gods' teachings. Both can be found in the Hindu religion.

Where did you get the idea that Hindus are atheist? Go and ask a Hindu if they are an atheist and tell me what they say. Or look it up. Perhaps you are confused with the East's everything / nothing dichotomy. Sometimes they see many gods as one god and one as many. Or all gods as none. It's strange and confusing, to say the least, but it's not the same as atheism. And it's a cultural tradition, not an accidental contradiction.

There are teachings of atheism in Hinduism also.

QUOTE

If satan was to one or two or three horrible religions, like blatant satan worship where people are sacrficed, he is worshipped and people are killed, hated, etc, how much more attractive would Christianity look?

Truth and good stuff have to be mixed in with the lie. All he has to do is point people to a feel-good, loving religion that points people away from the truth of JC as the son of God and saviour.

But so many religions aren't all that feel-good and loving.

Do you think celibacy and fasting are fun and enjoyable? Most people don't think so, yet most religions practice practice them in some ritual or role. Almost every religion has some class of monk or nun who refrains from pleasure. This seems neither Satanic nor feel-good. It just doesn't fit your explanation.

Heck, just look at Jainism. These people are so afraid of killing any form of life that they sweep the path in front of them (so they don't crush bugs) and they wear face masks (to avoid inhaling microorganisms). They avoid building houses (so they don't kill worms) and they are vegetarians but they can only eat a few different vegetables. If false religions are an evil ploy of Satan, what's the point of Jainism?

Any religion that speaks of anything other than JC as God are wrong. I don't dispute there are various ways satan has accomplished this. For the rigid and strict, there are strict religions and some people gravitate toward that. Others gravitate to feel-good religions where every path is a path to God. There are many various ways he can bring us into destruction.

[The Lorax]

However we don't find this. We find that scriptures have been meticulously copied, when we find things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and recently an ancient copy of Leviticus.

There are teachings of atheism in Hinduism also.

For the third time, what makes you think this?

Any religion that speaks of anything other than JC as God are wrong. I don't dispute there are various ways satan has accomplished this. For the rigid and strict, there are strict religions and some people gravitate toward that. Others gravitate to feel-good religions where every path is a path to God. There are many various ways he can bring us into destruction.

I guess. I just don't see evidence that Satan is responsible for this when humans are already so good at deceiving themselves. It's my belief that false religions run the gamut from outright shams (like Scientology) to honest mistakes stemming from misinterpreted numinous experiences, drug trips, whatever. People are gullible and foolhardy.

[ALTACALL]

I never said there wasnt..i said that using prophecies foretold and fullfilled in the bible is not proof of anything

I am not as loose and free with the word "proof" since it appears to me that different people operate from varying standards with respect to what qualifies in their minds as "proof." The truth is that if you don't want to be convinced, there is no amount of proof that could be offered to satisfy your skepticism. To be honest, whether it was fulfilled in a time period contemporary with the Bible or at a later time, is pretty much irrelevant.

How much are you willing to stake on that assumption?

The worldwide return of the Jews to the Land (Isa. 43:5-6)

I dont see this..i see god saying he will gather his people...i dont see a specific time or place..or even a general time or place

Doesn't matter. There has never been a world-wide mass return of the Jewish people from mulitiple nations at any other given time in history. The return from Babylonian exile does not fit that desription since the return was from only one area and it was only a minority of the Jews that returned.

Since the Jews returned from Babylonian captitivty, the Land has been under the control of a string of different of different world powers over the last 2,500 years from the Hasmoneans, Romans, Muslims (until 1914) Britain(until 1948) and now the current Israeli government. The ONLY time and place that a world wide Jewish immigration into the Land has taken place is in the 20th century.

Israel will be rebuilt and resettled by the Jewish people (Eze. 36: 33-35)

no specific time or place In verse 1, it refers to the "mountains of Israel" which refers to the very heart of Israel, Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Won't get more speicific than that. As for the time, well... again, when you read the entire prophecy, it does not match any description of Israel post-Ezekiel until now. Furthermore, Ezekiel states that the Jews would return in a state of unbelief in God, and point of fact, Israel's first leaders and many of the people who immigrated to Israel were atheists and agnostics. Israel was founded by people who didn't even believe in God, but yet their actions fulfilled prophecy to the last detail.

Israel will be restored and repopulated (Eze. 36: 8-10)

again no specific time

See above remarks.

Israel will be brought back to life (Eze. 37: 10-14)

thats not even close to what these verses say...it says the dead PEOPLE of issrael will be brought back to life..i havent seen any zombies

No, that is not what it says. It is talking about the nation. The vision of the dry bones is just that a vision. The vision is to be interepreted literally but not at face value as you are doing. In fact, Eze. 36 and 37 are the same prophecy, really. They should be one chapter. It refers to a dead nation being brought back to life.

The Jews will buy back the Land (Jer. 32: 44)

no specific time

Yes, but it is very specific to what areas would be purchased and it is documented fact that after the fall of the Ottomon Empire, Jews returing to the Land purchased acres of swamp and desert from absentee Turkish landowners at outrageously expensive prices. And those purchases were made the very areas Jeremiah prophesied would be purchased as any good map of Israel will show, right down to the cities of Negev which are currently under Israeli sovereignty.

The people of Israel will once again be a united people (Eze. 37: 15-19)

wow..lot of interpretation here..but even despite that no time line

No, it is happening today. Jews live in both areas what was considered both northern and southern kingdoms. We are still in the process of fulfillment as all Jews have not completely returned. Enough have returned and events match up with the Bible in enough detail to make this fulfllment unmistakable to any one willing to approach it in an honest fashion.

none of it matters especially if its never happened before it doesnt mean that the prophet knew the future at all..random events that eventually lead to interpretations matching that which you wsh them to match

i can be convinced..just not by frauds

It is evident that anyone can be swayed but not convinced but at this time it appears that you do not want to be even swayed by human reasoning but at least you are hearing the gospel whether you believe it at this time or not. it is not us that convicts you but the WORD. Christians can only make the case for Christ but a closed mind is just like a closed door, you can't see what's on the other side unless you push the door open and you have chosen not to open your mind at all so how could you ever believe. you have not conceded one point to anyone but have countered every point with a "prove it Attitude. Well you want to someone to prove God is real but you have not shown any proof he is not, you have only rattled on about needing exact dates. An debate with AN ATHIEST CANNOT BE WON because they want to see everything but we WALK BY FAITH NOT BY SIGHT. I am sad that you may never know the joy that a Spirit filled Christian knows But I am glad you are hearing the Word under any circumstances.

[ALTACALL]

This is an interesting thread. As a Christian, you already know my answer to the question, but I've got a question I'd like other Christians to answer:

Other than Christianity, are all religions massive conspiracy theories?

You need to start your own trhead

[ALTACALL]

Hinduism - could it have been created by some guy or maybe two? Yep, it was.

You're not very familiar with Hinduism.

Hinduism is based on books called the Vedas, which were written over several centuries. The complete corpus of Vedic mantras as collected in Bloomfield's Vedic Concordance (1907) are 89,000 feet long, of which 72,000 occur in the four Samhitas. "Some guy or maybe two" could not have written all those books. The books represent a long oral tradition and oral traditions are transmitted by thousands of people.

Islam - could it have been created by some guy? Yep, it was.

This is true, but don't forget Islam's scriptures include the Bible.

I wouldn't really call them conspiracies so much as just fraudulent.

Who committed the fraud and why?

The Koran does not include biblical scripture, it distorts scripyure like someone only has a vague idea and fills in the rest.

[artsylady]

Hi Lorax: Sorry for the slow response.

For the third time, what makes you think this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

[artsylady]

Hey again Lorax. I had another thought that I forgot to include in the last post. I am fostering children and need to keep regular log notes. My worker continues to stress this especially with the current kids we have because their guardian makes a lot of accusations against us and undoubtedly does not want the kids with us, nor does she want them to be happy with us. She's very hurt and tries to manipulate everything. Every time I talk to my worker, she says "Log notes.. log notes... log notes". Very important because as she says, and I do know for a fact, if you aren't logging what's going on, you just forget. So true.

So if hinduism is based on oral tradition, it is just so untrustworthy. If it was written down centuries later, who knows how much the original message changed.

Heck, in my own family, I can talk to one member who talks to another member who then talks to me about that situation and even through one person, the story is COMPLETELY skewed. Maybe my family is just really bad for that. Especially my mom. Oy vey! Drives me batty sometimes! I know she doesn't mean to do it though.

[Rebmilc]

Could humans have come up with the ideas in the Bible? I suppose they could have come up with some of those ideas. But could humans have orchestrated all of the events throughout the entire history of the Bible? In order to answer the question, you have to look at the whole book beginning to end.

1. Humans, as history is only too able to tell us, are quite creative when it comes to religion, ethics, morality, human nature, gods and mythology. So in my mind, the purely doctrinal parts of the Bible (i.e. the non-historical parts) could most certainly have been man-made.

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 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 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.

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.

What about the prophesies. The Bible is 1/4 prophesy and 100 percent accurate so far. Just looking at the prophesies of Jesus alone, is this something that can be done on a purely human level? Well, certainly prophesies can be written or copied but can they come to pass with 100 percent accuracy? No.

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.

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.

8. 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.

Man cannot make up someone that is holy in all His actions! Man doesn't know holy from a hole in the ground! No one but Jesus Himself could answer all the requirements in the prophecies foretelling His arrival! A man cannot plan His own birth and parentage, and fulfill all the other prophecies on His own! Plain folly to think that one can, and laughable too.

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?

And 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.

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.

Systemstrike.

I find your argument against the census never having taken place totally illogical . Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean it never happened.

Archaeologists have made great progress in discovering how and when a Roman census was taken. Ancient papyrus census decrees have been found for the years 20, 34, 48, 62 and 104. These show they normally took place every 14 years, although local counts at times were taken more frequently.

A papyrus in the British Museum describes a census similar to Luke's account, taken in 104, in which people were ordered to return to their birthplaces. It reads: "Gaius Vibius Mazimus, Prefect of Egypt: Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments" (Frederick G. Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, 1907, plate 30).

You say "It doesn't make sense". Well as this papyrus shows it clearly did to them.

[ALTACALL]

Who were these guys?

Indo-Aryans. Too many of them to count, probably.

However, Hindus don't think the authors "invented" the Vedas. They think the people who wrote the Vedas were divinely inspired, that is, they were recording divine knowledge, not making stuff up.

Did the languages span, are there messages encoded, that can now be revealed through the use of computers?

No idea. Does the Bible have that sort of thing? Sounds fascinating...could you give me an example?

Was there prophesy? Was there any archaoeological proof, like the proofs of sodom and gomorrah or the walls of Jericho where the archaeology matches the 'other worldly' events spoken of?

There is prophesy in the Vedas, though admittedly I don't know much about it, being a Christian and not a Hindu. I know of one prophesy you might find interesting: they predict that Krisha (the avatar of the head god Brahma) will return to Earth on a white horse in the end times. There are a lot of Krishna-Jesus parallels: Krishna was allegiedly born to a virgin, and his birth was heralded by a star, and visited by three wise men, and he died by crucifixion.

The oldest book wasn't penned until after 300 BC.

Hinduism existed long before the Vedas (and the Bible) were books. The Vedas were originally an oral tradition that went back into the Bronze Age, perhaps even 5000 years ago.

There are too many contradictions in Hindu writings - from many gods to atheism are rather stark.

Hindus are not atheist, they are polytheist. They believe in a single creator god, Brahma, and two other main gods, Shiva and Vishnu. These gods have myriad incarnations and there are tons of less powerful gods as well. A lot of Hindus understand the minor gods to be myth, but all Hindus believe in Brahma.

I think that satan created them. I believe the writers were unaware.

We think differently, I guess. Here's how I see it: If Satan created all other religions, they would all be unbelievably savage--worse even than Wahabi Islam. For instance, there's no way they would have rules about compassion and kindness. But most sects of most religions do teach compassion in one form or the other, even if these teachings are ignored by adherents.

I think false religions might be tainted by Satan, but it doesn't make sense to say all false religions were created by him. They are, for the most part, too...nice. Surely Satan could do much worse than, say, Buddhism.

Rember satan is a conterfiet, we all knoww conterfiets are suppose to appear alike. Satan was an angel and was beautiful. He didn'e get ugly when he fell.