A Massive Conspiracy Theory?

[artsylady]

I had posted this a couple of times and no responses, so I wondered if you could respond in this thread.

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.

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? 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? Look at Sodom and Gomorrah and unexplained sulpher balls and a ruined city in the exact vicinity where the city once stood, it's hard to reconcile that particular story to being merely of human origins.

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

So, the writers were writing about events that surrounding their time period and attributing a lot of it to the same non existant God. But why?

And why is the Bible the only book that does chronical the histories of humans and their early to late relationships with this one God? Why didn't the other religions do so?

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.

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?

It wasn't like it was the governments had made up this God to control the people. While some of the writers were royalty, another is just a farmer. And if you think that the leaders of nations wanted to make up this God to control the peoples, take a look at the writings of King David and you'll meet a very humble man who cries out to God for help and thanks him for protection against his enemies. So it's not about that either.

So, in answer to your question on whether or not humans could have come up with the ideas? Yes. Could they have orchestrated them over thousands of years and made prophesies to come to pass? No. Could the writers have known about the medical facts thousands of years before the medical communities would accept them without any knowledge from God? Not likely.

If you believe it was written purely by humans, the questions just seem to get bigger and more unanswerable.

Now, if Christianity 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?

[Guest Ben07]

I had posted this a couple of times and no responses, so I wondered if you could respond in this thread.

To respone to your ad,my opinion is that why would they make up something like the bible for? morality?Let say the bible was made up by man.They have a mission.agree?they want more and more people to believe in morality.why?cause theres evil.they want to outnumber evil with morality.if theres evil ,then there has to be good.If evil exist wher does it come from?of cousre it has to start somewhere agree?Someone or something encourage this pass down to man, So if something or someone is behind evil.Then there has to be someone behind good.Does he exist.You bet he does...

[

[artsylady]

I had posted this a couple of times and no responses, so I wondered if you could respond in this thread.

To respone to your ad,my opinion is that why would they make up something like the bible for? morality?Let say the bible was made up by man.They have a mission.agree?they want more and more people to believe in morality.why?cause theres evil.they want to outnumber evil with morality.if theres evil ,then there has to be good.If evil exist wher does it come from?of cousre it has to start somewhere agree?Someone or something encourage this pass down to man, So if something or someone is behind evil.Then there has to be someone behind good.Does he exist.You bet he does...

[

Hi Ben. I see this is your first post, so welcome and yep! Agree!

[Floatingaxe]

No human being could ever, ever fabricate the Bible! It was written over a period of about 800 years! All writers conform with each other. Most of all, no one is so righteous as to fabricate a totally righteous and wise God! We don't have that kind of wisdom and holiness to do such a mighty thing...we are hopeless and hapless people.

[secondeve]

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.

[Floatingaxe]

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.

[Masked Chris]

Now, if Christianity 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?

I think claiming something as a conspiricy happens when people hate the idea of something but have no logical understanding of why they hate it.... so they use the "conspiricy therey" as an excuse. Though.... before the Christains and the Atheists go to war here lets not forget that there have been alot of quistions brought to Christainity that Christains have wrote off as "part of a conspiricy against God".

Edited January 31, 2007 by Masked Chris

[secondeve]

Man cannot make up someone that is holy in all His actions! Man doesn't know holy from a hole in the ground!

You can't prove that. Clearly all human cultures have a concept of 'perfect,' and although you'll argue that's because God exists, it also lines up with 'humans just made this idea up.' And also, from where I'm standing, there's enough questions to be raised about a 'perfect' being that the concept seems flawed enough to be manmade.

[systemstrike_7]

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.

[Guest Annatar: Bringer of Gifts]

amen