A Massive Conspiracy Theory?

[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.

[Grungekid]

I seem to recall you asking me to respond to this before I disappeard. Sorry about that. I got caught up in a course that I was doing, and I didn't really have time to come here.

Here goes nothing...

In the bible, God is mentioned in reference to two main things: the cause of natural phoenomona and in reference to prophecy.

That would be a disputable interpretation, but go on.

Now, first of all, you'll have to accept that the ancient Jews did not know everything. They didn't have today's meteorological knowledge or devices; they didn't have today's medical knowledge; they didn't know much about the life cycles of insects; hell, in the beginning, they didn't even have the ability to craft iron.

Uhm, they didn't need meteorological knowledge to know about the weather outside. Even we don't really need it. Furthermore, the only benefit that would yield is that they could give extrapolations of future weather patterns, but any chaotician could tell you that there is no way to form a prediction that has a hope of being accurate past a few days. Thus, this paradigm that our modern science in the area is such an improvement over their own comes crashing down. We really just figured out the different levels of the atmosphere, and the different varieties of clouds and their ranges from the ground. Then you move on about medical knowledge. They actually had a substantial amount of that. Have you ever read in Deuteronomy and Leviticus about the requirements for unclean objects, animals, and people? Admittedly, they didn't have vitamins, antibiotics, or vaccines, but they knew a lot about prevention, wich is more than admirable. And who cares if they didn't have iron? Plato probably couldn't have made iron without being instructed. You don't need to be able to smelt iron to be considered intelligent, or even reliable. Of course they didn't know everything, but you jump off and try to say that they practically didn't know anything, and that's just demeaning.

Now, as far as prophecy goes, first ask yourself this: is historical revisionism easier in a world in which there are many literate people, or a world in which there are few literate people? The answer should be clear, I think: if there are many literate people, many people need to be convinced of a false idea, while if there are few literate people, only a few need to be convinced - and if the false idea benefits the few literate people, then convincing them is a piece of cake. It would follow from this that if I can find a recent example of successful historical revisionism, then historical revisionism in ancient times would be quite plausible. And if it's plausible that there was an amount of historical revisionism related to the bible going on in ancient times, then if I'm asked to choose between the probability of a bunch of men making some stuff up to solidify their power over the Jews and there being an omnipotent cloud being who cares an awful lot about who I have sex with and how... yeah. I'm going to go with the men.

He doesn't care how, and plausibillity is debatable. You're hiding behind it like there is evidence to say they made it up, when there isn't. They could have taken it from other peoples, they could be telling the truth, or they could have just exagerated in the first place. Saying that they revised history is an assumption, just like any thing else, and it's not another Occam's Razor generalization; history doesn't work like ontology. You can't use 'plausabillity' interchangably with 'most likely'.

Let's start in the late 1480s, shall we. I know it's a while ago, but there was still far greater literacy in 15th century England than there was in ancient Israel, so historical revisionism should be harder. However, this did not stop Henry Tudor from convincing almost everyone that King Richard III was one of the most evil beings who ever existed. Richard III was accused of murdering King Henry VI, his brother George of Clarence, his wife and his nephews - despite there being no evidence for this. He was accused of being a tyrant - despite contemporary records of his rule as Duke of Gloucester suggesting that he was actually quite popular with the commoners in the north. He was also accused of being a hunchback - in fact, it is the most defining image of Richard III to have survived to this day, never mind that his portraits were actually repainted to make him look like a hunchback. Richard III's contemporaries actually consistently described him as a strong and handsome man - some records suggest that one shoulder was bigger than the other, but that is only to be expected from someone who wields a battleaxe into battle - a feat which a hunchback could not hope to accomplish.

That wasn't really a revision, in the sense that he was loathed from the time of his reign onward, similarly to George W. Bush II.

Now let's move forward to 1611. "What happened then?" I hear you ask. Well, in 1611, the bible was rewritten to conform to the political and social views of King James I of England. The quote, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", for example, was directly due to King James's fascination with the occult. Next time you pick up your bible, think about it, and wonder which bits are accurate translations, and which bits have been changed to reflect the views of a King of England.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure he didn't. If it was in the old testament, we've found other translations of many of the books that date from points earlier than the reign of King James I. They match quite well with modern translations.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

John Adams is only one of the founding fathers of America, and just because the legislation says otherwise, doesn't mean that Christianity didn't have an impact on the forefather's thinking. For example, Picasso wasn't necessarily a fascist, but it influenced his worldview and his art. Billy Corgan, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Ted Neugent all sound very different, but they are all inspired by Jimi Hendrix to some degree. In short, I would agree that there is no national religion that is federally recognized in America, but much of the essence of the country reflects Christian thought.

That's right! Anyone who claims that America is a Christian nation, or was founded on Christianity, is engaging in historical revisionism! They are quite simply ignoring the views of the founding fathers (who should, if nothing else, be considered canonical experts on their own views regarding the formation of America) and they're publicising this revised history in such a way that more and more people are believing their blatant lies. People today have access to the text of the treaty of Tripoli, but despite that, this historical revisionism continues! Imagine how much harder it would have been to call the priests on any historical revisionism they may have committed in the past when most people didn't have the benefit of literacy, let alone the myriad of printed copies that we have today.

Christianity was the most prominent religion for a very long time, and many of the ideas of Adams, Jefferson, Hancock, etc. involved 'the divine'. Read the Declaration of Independance. Again, we can see that they had some inspiration from the Christian teachings. Many leaders were also Christians here in America for quite awhile, and that had a profound influence on the decisions they made. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Abrahahm Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy were all Christians, and they all had ideas that they told us were promulgated in them through their spirituallity. In conclusion, although Christianity isn't considered official policy, it has been a major part of our country.

Finally, I'll give you an example of a modern self-fulfilling prophecy (I've simplfied it slightly to get the point across more clearly):

George W. Bush, circa 2003: Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and we must go into Iraq to stop them.

George W Bush, 2008: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. I told you so.

(Note: Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the American invasion. Essentially, Bush's strong belief that they were there led to a series of events that led to them moving in.)

I've answered this one before. The different books of the old testament have been verified to have been written at different times, through carbon-dating, authorial style, and location. In case you didn't know, people who would want to change what had already been written couldn't exactly go back and erase it, so that crosses out the possibillity that the texts we have found have been edited.

I hope I've shown you that historical revisionism is perfectly plausible. There's nothing unprecedented about the idea, especially in a society in which literate people only number in the dozens. Remember, the "conspiracy" only has to be confined to a small number of key people. If those people can be convinced to lie, then others will accept their word as fact, and will then start teaching the revised version as truth. If Suri Cruise grows up to be a spokesperson for Scientology, will she be lying? Will she be part of a conspiracy? Or will she simply be someone who was brainwashed as a child into believing that Xenu is controlling all our actions with Thetans?

Could you possibly be anymore beligerant? First you take the huge jump from 'it's plausible' to 'it's the true history of what you believe'. Next you go and accuse Christians of brainwashing their children, then you act like that is how all Christians get to where they are now. Neither of those are true. Out of all the people I know, it's the Christians in my life who have told me that I need to find out what is true for myself, and that I need to be real. If I don't really want Christ, they have said, then I can go do my own thing. Atheists are the ones who incessantly harass me and insult me and demand that I submit to their judgement. It gets old fast.

For 2,500 years, the histories of Japan have described their Emperor as being descended from the Sun-Goddess Amateratsu. This has been consistent all throughout Japan's history prior to 1945; the Japanese monarchy is the oldest continuous royal family in the world - surely a sign that the heavens themselves smiled upon them! Furthermore, for most of Japan's history, Japan has been protected from outside aggression by Kamikaze (divine winds) which have destroyed enemy fleets before they have reached Japan's shores. Consistently, they have credited these events on the same gods. How could it be that these various authors, who did not know each other, speak of the same gods? What kind of conspiracy is this? And why did the Shoguns, who could have benefitted immensely had they removed the Emperors from power, also support the Emperors's claim to divinity? And why didn't the Shoguns claim divinity of their own, if it were acceptable for humans to be descended from gods? Clearly this religion wasn't to benefit those in positions of power.

Now, if Shintoism is some sort of conspiracy by humans, how did they manage to pull it off and why? Who was orchestrating it in the first place?

Most Christians wouldn't doubt the possibility that a spiritual being could have inspired the Japanese, but we don't think that it was the all-powerful Creator of the universe, and that it is worth checking into for ensuring our spiritual salvation.

[The Lorax]

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?

[MorningGlory]

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?

No, not at all. All false religions are massive deceptions.

[artsylady]

False religions aren't nearly so complex, don't cover as much history, don't include various languages and writers from different walks of life, accurate prophesy, archaeology and the many other completities mentioned in this thread.

Buddhism - could it have been created by a guy? Yep, it was.

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

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

etc, etc, etc.

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

[The Lorax]

No, not at all. All false religions are massive deceptions.

What is the difference between a massive conspiracy theory and a massive deception?

[The Lorax]

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?

[artsylady]

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

.

I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture.

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

And now that's too long of a book. Who can read all of that? It's not practical at all. 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?

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

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

Yep, it wasThis is true, but don't forget Islam's scriptures include the Bible.

He rewrote a lot of it.

Who committed the fraud and why?

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

[The Lorax]

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.

[artsylady]

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?

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.

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.

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.

What about archeology surrounding written accounts at the time? I'm guessing no because so many of the traditions began as oral. And sodom and gomorrah and Jericho aren't just archeology - they are archaology that can be viewed as proof of acts of God.

I think there's a very good reason why God had people write things down at the time they happened with precise measurements and precise locations - so that it would be discovered as truth thousands of years down the road.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. Mission accomplished.