Talk:Biblical conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:31, 18 July 2004 editZero0000 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,842 edits more RK bluster← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:28, 10 December 2024 edit undoHowardcorn33 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,183 editsm Howardcorn33 moved page Talk:Bible conspiracy theory to Talk:Biblical conspiracy theory: Fix grammar: "Bible" is not an adjective.
(94 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|1=
	What mainstream historians dispute these facts? None. Only pro-Arab, anti-Israel agitators are unhappy with publicly discussing this material. In point of fact, there are many other Bible conspiracy theories that need to be discussed in this article, many that don't have anything to do with the State of Israel at all. For instance, the conspiracy theories about hidden books of the Bible, or those that relate to Jesus's supposed wife and children, the Freemasons, etc. None of these topics are NPOV violations. I understand that Zero and Martin Harper (MyRedDice) want this material discredited, because they feel that it hurts their pro-Arab, anti-Israeli political agenda. But that is not grounds to discredit facts. I am removing their NPOV dispute tag, because they can't back it up, and they are obviously just trying to prmote their political views. ] 15:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Christianity\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative Views\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Bible\|importance=low}}
			}}
			{{Old AfD multi\|date= March 20, 2007 \|result= '''KEEP''' \|page= Bible conspiracy theory }}

	The topic isn't a NPOV violation (if it is true), but I believe the text can be NPOV-ed somewhat further. I'll try to make a start. ] 21:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			==Archives of older discussion ==
	"Al-Kidwa said: "Most of the Khazars (a Turkish tribe that converted to Judaism in medieval times) are the Ashkenazic Jews who arrived in Palestine. As Allah is my witness, in my blood flows more of the Children of Israel and the ancient Hebrews than in the blood of Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu." This quote does not belong here; it relates not to Biblical conspiracy theories but to the old ] theory of the Ashkenazi's origins (first put forward, I believe, by ]), which, although very recently shown by genetic evidence to be largely incorrect, was a perfectly respectable academic theory and was held by some Jews. If an article on that exists, please put this quote there. - ] 19:43, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			* ]

	""The Palestinian Authority, and some other Arab governments and universities, teach that Jews never lived in Israel... This is a mainstream Arab view, taught in many schools across the Middle East."

			== Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail ==
	False!! Not only does this fail the subjective test - I've talked to many Arabs from all over the place and never heard this crazy theory - it fails the Google test. Do a search اليهود "من اليمن" and you know what you get? Pages and pages about the Yemenite Jews, and nothing (at least not in the first four pages, including many Palestinian government documents) about the Jews coming from Yemen. Let me guess - someone heard a ] quote, and decided that must mean that everyone in the Middle East thought this way, and decided on the basis of his supposed understanding of the Middle East to put this sentence in? Crazy. - ] 20:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			"(in fact the accepted belief in most Churches is that she was the "only" disciple)."
			This seems to be saying that modern chruches believe the twelve disciples were fake, which they do not. Can someone re-write that bullet point to clarify the intent? ] 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

			All right, since no one else wants to do it, I took a guess as to what you meant and rewrote it for clarity. ] 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry, but you are just wrong. Just because ''you'' haven't heard ofd this doesn't mean that it isn't taught. I sincerely doubt that you have even talked to 1% of all Arabs, not enough to have an informed view on ''this specific claim''. Did you ever actually look through any of the books on this subject? I have. And I do not know why you claim that this articles implies that all Arabs believe this. Please, stop the hysterics. The text in this article was very specific and very limited. You exagerrated the text into something that was never there, and then attacked a non-existent position. ]

			== proper place for conspiracies to run free ==
	"Numerous Palestinian Authority textbooks for their children teach them that Jews and Chrisitans lie about being connected to the land of Israel. Here is one such example: "The Zionists turn their attention towards Palestine as the national homeland of the Jews, while relying on false historical and religious claims." From Modern Arab History and Contemporary Problems, Part Two, for Tenth Grade p. 50"
			trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--] 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

			== Lost books of the Bible conspiracy theory ==
	It is entirely true that the Zionists relied partly on false historical claims - notably the claim of "a land without people for a people without land". As for the religious claims, they are irrelevant to the article. The example given, therefore, does not support the conclusion drawn from it, and has no place here. - ] 20:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			needs work; in particular, it needs to distinguish more carefully between the fact that certain books, held by some sects to be divinely inspired, were rejected when the canon was compiled, and the allegation that these books were suppressed out of sexism or fear rather than an honest belief in their falsehood. - ] 23:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	:Mustafaa, you misread this entire article. ''Nothing you mention here has anything to do with the topic''. The PA textbooks are clearly claiming that Jews never lived in the land of Israel. That is the anti-Semitic Bible conspiracy theory this article is talking about. ]

			:I am in total agreement. ] 17:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
	::: There is no such thing as a PA textbook that claims that "Jews never lived in the land of Israel". This is pure 100% undiluted first-grade poppycock. --] 05:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			Mustafaa, I am in total agreement with you that most people in the middle-east do not believe any such thing. I never imagined that the present text of the article would lead to such an impression. As such, I am certainly open to you and others reworing and rewriting the material in here, even moving some material to another article. I just don't want the context summarilly deleted. However, my goal is to expand this article to include all sorts of Bible conspiracy theories, especially those that deal with Jesus and his supposed wife, Jesus and his supposed childrem, Freemasons, etc. There are many such Bible conspiracy theories! ] 17:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
	The writer of this clearly either had no hesitation about lying, or for whatever reason failed to read more than about two words of this article. In the middle of a long survey of Arab historians's work on Palestine-related issues, one author - Maher Al-Sherif - dedicated one paragraph of one article of Al-Ahram to a summary of this idea that reads as if this theory was an exciting new possibility, rather than rejecting it out of hand. To the author of this article, that translates as: Al-Ahram accepts the theory. But don't take my word for it: take the Wayback Machine's... . - ] 20:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			:RK, before you massively reverted, please read the changes that were. Lots of the material did in fact go to another article, see ], which was referenced. Doesn't make sense to put it back. Much of the NPOVing that was done was also valid. I've reverted it back to the latest improved state. It can only be expected that many of these theories will have their own articles. This article in this case should link to these articles; the context should be clear enough. Or create a category if you are worried about losing context. ] 23:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	:Stop your ad homenim personal attacks on me. You are getting emotional, and unprofessional. ]

			::See? No reverts? There you go. I am happy to oblige. Now that we all understand each other, we see where the others are going. Everything seems to be working out Ok. ] 18:36, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
	An even worse lie: without further ado, he claimed that http://jamaat.net/ supports the theory. Do a quick Google search "Yemen site:jamaat.net": nothing. Try "kamal salibi site:jamaat.net" - you get one hit. Look at it , and it turns out to be an argument that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible, which quotes Kamal Salibi once, not to argue that the Jews came from Arabia but to argue that Mount Paran is near Mecca, thus allowing the verse in question to predict Muhammad's coming. I;m starting to doubt even the minor details - is Kamal Salibi really Lebanese? I sure wouldn't take this guy's word for it.... - ] 20:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			:::OK, glad we've cleared that up. - ] 10:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	:Again, stop your hysterics. You are pretending that I am claiming that all (or most Arabs) have this view. ''This article never made any such claim''. Instead, this article was about a ]. It was a spin-off of the main conspiracy article. ] 04:32, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

			I've added my own two cents to the article, I wanted to clear up any confusion regarding the difference between the ancient groups alleging Bible conspiracy and corruption, like the Essene Nazoreans and Gnosticism (which although i do not adhere to those groups, I do find a strong reason to take their accusation seriously) versus the more modern pseudo-Christian groups that make the same claims, yet without any historical record of their own to validate them. The Mormon, Muslim, Jehovah Witness, and Jesus Only groups have made strong claims, and I found that their claims do not show any historical claim, and in fact they confuse people searching FOR biblical changes in the early periods.
	So this was you RK? You know, I really thought better of you than that. I'll have to look more carefully at the Al-Aqsa mosque stuff. - ] 21:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			==Councils and the canon==
	And just for good measure, you know how many hits a Google search on "كمال صليبي" (Kamal Salibi) gets? Just 300, on the whole Internet. And that's including anything about him - most of his works are on Lebanese history, not this weird Bible in Arabia thing. - ] 21:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			''"the Council of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) mostly fixed the currently recognized canon."'' See any flaws here? --] 04:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			:LOL ok I just skimmed over this. Thanks for the heads up. -- ] 04:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			== RE: "differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups" ==
	:Of course, because this is a conspiracy theory, and not real history! What about this do you fail to understand?

			"''These groups have published their own Bibles that differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups.''"
	==Does Kamal Salibi belong here?==
			This is not true regarding Mormons. They use the King James version of the Bible, not "their own Bible". --] 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
			:That is correct concerning ''most'' LDS, but that is not true for the Non-LDS Mormons.--] 03:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
			::Regardless, it is not specific enough! --] 03:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			== Renaming this article ==
	Kamal Salibi's theory does not appear to involve the postulation of any conspiracy; rather, it claims that when the Jews moved, they identified the places in their new home with those of their old one - just as Hindus put "Ayodhya"s all over India and as far afield as Thailand - and that they then forgot that there had ever been a distinction. Mind-blowingly silly, yes; conspiracy, no. Nor does it claim that the Bible was edited to support this theory. So what is it doing in this article? - ] 22:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see ]. A vote is occurring at ]. -] 05:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
	: I agree. I didn't read Salibi's book but I read the (mostly hostile) reviews of it in a few academic journals. He proposed a novel historical theory on the basis of not much evidence and hasn't found much support for it amongst other historians. He does not deny Jews lived in Palestine during the second temple period, but argues that much of the earlier cultural memory derives from the Arabian peninsular. It is an alternative to the biblical version of an Egyptian exile and subsequent conquest of Canaan which also has hardly any archaelogical support. One could reasonably call it an idiosyncratic fringe theory, but not a conspiracy theory. --] 00:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			== Removed text ==
	:::Since Zero has a history of supporting anti-Semites, I would not think his vote matters very much here. This is not a joke. ] 04:32, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
			From what is written here, we are ''not'' dealing with conspiracy theories. If people in these groups have conspiracy theories about the Bible, they need to be explained in much moer detail. ] 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

			:Bible conspiracy theories form the cornerstone of some relatively modern Christian religious movements. Most notably ] (see ]), The modern day ] (see the ] of ]) assert that the Bible was deliberately modified (or at least carelessly allowed to be copied sloppily) to edit out what they consider to be the ] that supports their religious viewpoint. These groups have published their own Bibles that differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups. In addition these groups publish new books, which they hold are divinely inspired ]s, to support their translations.
	:: But where to put it? I'd be tempted to just move the Kamal Salibi stuff to the page about him - it's not an important enough theory to merit its own page. And the suggestions that the Temple was elsewhere, or that the Old City was never inhabited by Jews, belong in - say - an Israeli-Palestinian Mutual Historic Denial page, full of quotes from Israelis claiming there were no Palestinians in Palestine or some part thereof, and Palestinians claiming there were no Jews in Israel or some part thereof... Can you think of any appropriate article? - ] 04:44, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			== ], the '']'', the ] and ] ==
	Thanks Mustafaa for all the fact checking and NPOV-ing editing. I think this removes most of the polemic and very importantly, specifies that we're discussing two separate things here. One the theory that the pre-exilic jews lived in Yemen. This looks similar to the many theories that exist about the origins of other peoples; sometimes they're placed in rather surprising locations. This happens probably in part due to political/nationalistic reasons and in part due to the difficulty to archeologically trace back movements of peoples. The other statements are convenient statements with usually clear political motivations about specific sites. I'll try editing the article to split those into two sections.
			It may be worth note that ] suspected the '']'' to be a false book designed by ]s to introduce legalism into Christianity and undermine the doctrine of the ] (which, of course, the ] had utilized to maintain control over it's perishoners).

			Similarly, there is a mini conspiracy in the ] community over the ], in particular, the '']'' (which some suggest was deliberately hidden, often in order to hide vital information concerning ] ] and the nature of the ], particularly in relation to the ] and their connection to the ] phenomena). Some have even shown curiosity over the '']'' due to ] information as well. -- ] 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
	Should this article be called 'conspiracy theory'? This has strong associations which could be seen as implying POV. Perhaps something like 'alternate theories about the bible' or something like that? ] 21:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			== Israel was not in Israel ==
	:I've done more editing. I've done the split as previously mentioned, and while doing this I've also been NPOV-ing some of the point of view analysis inserted by Mustafaa.

			If it is, as it says, not a Bible conspiracy theory, why is it in the Bible conspiracy theory article? Especially when it is discussed at another article? ] 03:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The more I look at this page, the more disjoint it looks. One the one hand, we're looking at alternative theories of histories of times that happen to be described, among other places, in the Bible. We're also looking at attempts to use interpretations (mainstream or not) of the history of the land for political reasons.

			:It's a question of political correctness. If you want to understand it better, you could investigate on what very unwelcome persons such as ] (in fact a fascist) say; Serrano has also written about "The Visits of the Queen of Sheba" and ] provided a forword. ]
	:Then quite separately we're talking about lost books of the bible. There were early Christian texts that were not included with other early Christian texts in the New Testament; that much is commonly accepted and in such there is no conspiracy (unless historically there was an attempt to suppress that this was the case?) Then there are conspiracy theories that attempt to explain ''why'' certain texts were not included and certain others were.

			::What does it matter if Serrano was/is a fascist? Does that make him wrong? Or just biased?--] 17:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Should we split this article up into multiple ones? Are some of these articles mergeable with others that already exist? ] 22:01, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			:::Maybe tainted would be a better word.--] 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I'm inclined to agree with you, Martijn. Looking over the content, I would say that we have two alternative-history theories - which do not posit conspiracies - and a theory, that some books of the bible were suppressed, which is quite reasonable and doesn't have to involve any conspiracy either, as well as two unwritten sections. Why not just move the Kamal Salibi theory to ], the site denial stuff to something like ], and the suppression material to ] or the like, and leave this article as a stub? - ] 07:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			== Some say it was thought to have been whispered that... ==
	::I agree too. --] 12:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			*"critical scholars think..."
	:::The first two are done. The third might need input from somene better-versed in the history. - ] 20:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			*"has been considered fraudulent by a majority of scholars..."
			*"...the Sophia of the title is, in gnostic thought, the female counterpart to Christ."
			*"...now considered genuine by a majority of scholars..."
			I don't think this is an entirely accurate summary of the current scholarship. Could the editor add the works he/she used, and cite the claims to their authors? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

			You didn't even bother to look up Sophia - ]. I think this shows how little attention is paid by some editors to current scholarship, and even to obvious wikipedia articles. ] 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Lost books of the Bible conspiracy theory ==
			:I've specified my requests for citation with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


	needs work; in particular, it needs to distinguish more carefully between the fact that certain books, held by some sects to be divinely inspired, were rejected when the canon was compiled, and the allegation that these books were suppressed out of sexism or fear rather than an honest belief in their falsehood. - ] 23:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			== Umm... ==

			HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! ] 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

			:Thanks for sharing.] 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

			You're welcome, because frankly, a resounding laugh is all I have to say about this entire article. ] 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

			::I know this article needs work, but why laugh at this article? Is it because it contradicts your beliefs? - Greg - 12:01PM - 23 April 2007 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

			Honestly I think most conspiracies are just ridiculously hilarious and overbearing examples of suspicion and paranoia thought up by a bunch of malignant intellectuals with nothing better to do because their jobs are terribly boring. But on the other side of things, I am a Bible believing Christian with a very childlike faith, and I do suppose that's part of why I laugh about it, but most of it's just an aspect of common sense. I'll also admit to a small bit of immaturity on my part. I'm not the most mature person when it comes to intellectual debates (not arguments). That immaturity might also have contributed to my laughter. Although, maturity has nothing to do with intelligence. But you know what? There will probably be a million things we'll never know, like whether or not Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene (even though she was as old as his mother), or whether or not there's a heaven or a hell. I suppose that is until we die, we won't know. So maybe we will find out the truth one day, won't we? ] 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

			==Constantine==

			This article doesn't seem to mention the common conspiracy theories of the Roman emperor Constantine supposedly imposing changes in the Bible onto the early 4th-century A.D. Church. ] 08:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

			That's because that is not a common conspiracy theory. Constantine had nothing to do with compiling the canonical scripture in the Bible as we know it today. That notion was first and only proposed by Dan Brown in his book The Da Vinci Code, in which it was a plot device he used to explain certain historical inconsistencies. The theory itself can be disproven by any 1st century historian who does not have his head stuck in his own rear end. ] 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

			You are sooooo incorrect ManofRenown87, try some researching. Conspiracies didn't start with Dan Brown. He just popularised them.--] 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

			:Actually, I would like someone to reseach most of the stuff in this article... there is a distinct lack of citation. If Dan Brown didn't come up with the Constantine stuff, then who did? ] 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

			Good question... ] 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

			And to anonymous user-dude, I didn't say "conspiracy theories started with Dan Brown" did I? Well the answer is no. Conspiracy theory is a very broad term, this article is talking about BIBLICAL conspiracy theories, not just conspiracy theories in general. What I said was that Dan Brown invented the notion that Constantine had anything to do with compiling the canonical Bible, and you should try some researching yourself if you actually think he did. Constantine never touched the canonical Bible. Say what you mean if you want people to take your counter-points seriously, or shut up. ] 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

			== Information about Bernard of Clairvaux ==

			In fact, it was not Bernard who founded the cistercian order, as the article says. He was one of the most important thinkers of it, he was from one of the early generations of cistercian monks, but he wasn't the founder - the founder was Robert of Molesme.

			== David Icke and Joseph atwill ==
			I separated the text in the section entitled "The Bible As A Lie: The New Testament" so that the David Icke text and the Joseph Atwill text are not mixed up together. As it stood, it was not representative of Atwill's writing in Caesar's Messiah. I left Icke's text alone, as I cannot comment on what is written about him. --] 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Citing sources ==

			This article has a serious issue with the lack of sources. It does not surprise me that someone somewhere has come up with each of these theories, but none of them are cited. The only source listed in the references section is the bible (and that only indirectly)... the rest is more along the lines of "footnoted commentary". Please, locate reliable sources to back up the information in this article. ] 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

			== Knights Templar ==

			In the intro this article states:
			*''A Bible conspiracy theory is any conspiracy theory that posits that much of what is known about the Bible is a deception created to suppress some secret, ancient truth. Some of these theories claim that Jesus really had a wife and children, or that the Knights Templar had secret information about the true descendants of Jesus; some claim that there was a secret movement to censor books that truly belonged in the Bible, etc.''

			I notice, however, that the section on the Knights Templar does not actually discuss them having any "secret information about the true descendants of Jesus". In fact, the section does not really contain ''anything'' about a Bible conspiracy as the article defines it. This information should either be added (''with'' citations to who came up with the theory) or the section should be removed (along with the mention in the intro.) Thanks ] 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

			:Well, since no one has responded, I will delete the material. Feel free to add it back with citations. ] 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

			The Knight's Templar were a bunch of European based war-mongers with some serious greed issues who were rumored to worship pagan demons. They didn't care about God, history or theology, they were in the Crusades for the wealth and power. If anyone had information about the life of Christ, it wasn't them. And if they did claim to know some terrible secret, what reason would anyone have to believe them? ] 10:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

			:WOW!!! Nice rant. Did you clear that one right up, sources? More like Opinion. Cause I said so...nanny nanny boo boo!! --] 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

			== Nominated for deletion ==

			Well... given the problems with citations mentioned above... perhaps the only way to get some work done on this article is the threat of deletion. I am more than willing to withdraw the nom if it looks as if some citation work is being done. Please review ] and get to work. ] 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

			:Ok... the AfD debate resulted in a 'Keep'. People feel this topic is notable, and even though virtually none of the material is backed by any source they want an article on this. That is a typical result for just about any page with the words "conspiracy theory" in it... and about what I was expecting. This is actually fine with me... I nominated it for deletion more to highlight the problem with lack of citations than to actually get rid of the article. I find that often the threat of deletion inspires people to work on the article. Unfortunately, I don't think my plan worked. The problem still exists. There continues to be a distinct lack of citations here. Looking forward.... I have added a bunch of citation request tags where I see a crying need for sources. Hopefully someone will add them. I will wait about a month, and see if anyone actually does so. If it looks as if someone is working on finding citations, great... if not, I will start removing unsourced statements and sections per Misplaced Pages policy. ] 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

			:: You have to give us a chance. Some of us are busy doing other things. Thanks. --] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

			:::Happy to give people a chance... but considering that I first raised my concerns about the lack of sources in this article last FEBRUARY (more than a month and a half ago) ... I think I ''have'' given people a chance. So... while I will give you yet more time... please move this up in your priority. The clock is ticking. ] 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

			== removing statements without references ==

			Last call folks... I need some citations and references. It's been two months since I first raised this issue (and two weeks since my last request) and still most of this article is unreferenced. I will start removing unreferenced text later this weekend. If I remove something you feel needs to be in the article, you can return it once you have located a source. ] 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

			:OK... I have cut those things that were not even remotely referenced ... the article is basically gutted, so it will need some major clean up. I have left some material (primarily in the New Testiment section) where at least an author of a theory has been mentioned in the text, and where, thus, there is at least a potential that it could be referenced ... but these need actual citations to stay (simply claiming an author says something is not acceptable... we need a citation to where he/she says it). If they are not cited in a few weeks I will remove them as well. ] 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

			:Did you even try checking the Wiki links in the article, most of which were already referenced, or did you just ignore them? Seems like you picked and chose your way thru, will revert the entire article.--] 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

			::As far as picking and choosing goes... the only criteria I used was: were there any citations listed to back the statements. If there were, I left the material, if not I cut it. I made a judgment call if the article mentioned an author as that seemed to indicate at least the possibility of a citation being added.
			::As for the wiki links... no I didn't check them. The information in THIS article needs to be cited. If there are a ton of citations at linked articles then it should have been easy to add citations to THIS article during the two months that I have been asking for them. Feel free to add the material back WITH citations, but I will cut it again if citations are not provided. I am tired of being a voice in the wilderness on this issue. ] 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
			:Well now Bluebaer, aren't we being pecular...um..er...particular?--] 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

			== The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something ==

			I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at ], please direct all comments to the proposal's ], thanks. ] ] 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

			:In this case, it refers to things which are conspicuously not supported by the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so it doesn't have to be neutral... ] 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

			::In my interpretation of Misplaced Pages principles everything has to be presented neutrally and Misplaced Pages itself can not take sides (non-neutrality in the title is very bad). Any article is free to cite who and how many people believe X is "non-mainstream" but an article's title is different and requires an even higher level of neutrality. ] ] 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

			:::We don't have to be "neutral" between the hypothesis that the earth is flat and the hypothesis that the earth is not flat. ] 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

			::::It would be inappropiate to put discrediting in an article's title, such things have to be cited and put inside the article. ] ] 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

			:::::It seems quite appropriate to me to refer to a theory alleging that a conspiracy occurred as a "conspiracy theory", what else? There is nothing biased about that.] (]) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

			== unreferenced material - continued ==

			Well, it has now been over half a year since I requested citations for a lot of the material in the "New Testiment" section... and no citations have been given. It is one thing to say that "according to Author X, such and such is true"... but we need to include a citation to where Author X actually says this. I will give it a bit more time (perhaps a week), but if no citations are forthcoming, I am going to delete the uncited material. In the meantime, I have added a refimprove tag. ] 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

			::Deletion done. If you wish to return the material, please do so ''with'' citations per Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

			:::I'm sure that I'm beating a dead horse here, but isn't the very notion of conspiracy theories going to make it difficult to find sources? I understand referencing is the cornerstone of Misplaced Pages, but I feel we've got to be a little loose here; I came to this page hoping to see a list of Bible-related conspiracies; what I found was a laughably underdeveloped article.

			:::The article was '''Kept''' for a reason ... I think we should try to make it as thorough as possible, even without proper citation when necessary. But that's just me. ] (]) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

			::"''I think we should try to make it as thorough as possible''"... I totally agree... "''even without proper citation when necessary''"... absolutely NOT. Citations are ''vital'' in an article such as this. ] (]) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

			===2014===
			I came here looking for a list of the "Biblical Conspiracy Theories" specifically those that involve serendipitous "discoveries" of OT Books that helped OT Kings cement their "Right To Rule" as well as the Pauline & Constantine ones, and to see others referenced to kick start research into those topics, but apparently Wiki does not consider such topics "notable", definitely not "the suppository of all wisdom" to quote Tony Abbott, Australian PM. ''-- 13:58, 21 July 2014 60.242.247.177''

			==Thiering==

			Barbara Thiering does allege that Jesus married and had children by Mary Magdalene, but I don't believe she suggests that there was a conspiracy to keep it secret. Instead, she says that the method of correctly reading the narrative recorded in the New Testament was lost.] (]) 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

			== Earl Doherty: no conspiracy ==

			When I first saw it, I was a little bothered by the inclusion of Earl Doherty's work in the "further reading" section. It seems to suggest that his theory is an example of the genre being discussed. Doherty does not, in any useful sense, advocate any kind of conspiracy theory.

			The article does say that only "some proponents" of mythicism are conspiracists. I would like to see more emphasis on the fact that many are not, particularly including the handful of reputable and well credentialed scholars and scholarly lay people who support mythicism. Doug Shaver 02:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== KJV-only ==

			Should the KJV-only movement be added to this page?
			It's a conspiracy theory that claims every new translation is corrupted. ] (]) 08:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

			== Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity ==

			James S. Valliant's book, '''"Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity,"''' presents a controversial theory that aligns somewhat with the idea of a deliberate reinterpretation of Hebrew religion by Roman elites. ] (]) 03:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

			:Unfortunately, any knowledgeable person can see at a glance that it has very significant chronology problems. No Roman emperor wanted to touch Christianity with a ten-foot pole until after the reign of Diocletian (i.e. after 300 A.D.), by which time the traditions of Christianity were already in place. Furthermore, the Roman approach to rebellious Jewish populations was always to apply massve military might with maximum brutality, leading to extreme massacres and enslavements... ] (]) 06:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:28, 10 December 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 20, 2007. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

Archives of older discussion

Talk:Bible conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail

"(in fact the accepted belief in most Churches is that she was the "only" disciple)." This seems to be saying that modern chruches believe the twelve disciples were fake, which they do not. Can someone re-write that bullet point to clarify the intent? 66.32.95.90 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, since no one else wants to do it, I took a guess as to what you meant and rewrote it for clarity. 66.32.7.69 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

proper place for conspiracies to run free

trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost books of the Bible conspiracy theory

needs work; in particular, it needs to distinguish more carefully between the fact that certain books, held by some sects to be divinely inspired, were rejected when the canon was compiled, and the allegation that these books were suppressed out of sexism or fear rather than an honest belief in their falsehood. - Mustafaa 23:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. RK 17:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I am in total agreement with you that most people in the middle-east do not believe any such thing. I never imagined that the present text of the article would lead to such an impression. As such, I am certainly open to you and others reworing and rewriting the material in here, even moving some material to another article. I just don't want the context summarilly deleted. However, my goal is to expand this article to include all sorts of Bible conspiracy theories, especially those that deal with Jesus and his supposed wife, Jesus and his supposed childrem, Freemasons, etc. There are many such Bible conspiracy theories! RK 17:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

RK, before you massively reverted, please read the changes that were. Lots of the material *did* in fact go to another article, see Israeli-Palestinian history denial, which was referenced. Doesn't make sense to put it back. Much of the NPOVing that was done was also valid. I've reverted it back to the latest improved state. It can only be expected that many of these theories will have their own articles. This article in this case should link to these articles; the context should be clear enough. Or create a category if you are worried about losing context. Martijn faassen 23:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See? No reverts? There you go. I am happy to oblige. Now that we all understand each other, we see where the others are going. Everything seems to be working out Ok. RK 18:36, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

OK, glad we've cleared that up. - Mustafaa 10:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added my own two cents to the article, I wanted to clear up any confusion regarding the difference between the ancient groups alleging Bible conspiracy and corruption, like the Essene Nazoreans and Gnosticism (which although i do not adhere to those groups, I do find a strong reason to take their accusation seriously) versus the more modern pseudo-Christian groups that make the same claims, yet without any historical record of their own to validate them. The Mormon, Muslim, Jehovah Witness, and Jesus Only groups have made strong claims, and I found that their claims do not show any historical claim, and in fact they confuse people searching FOR biblical changes in the early periods.

Councils and the canon

"the Council of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) mostly fixed the currently recognized canon." See any flaws here? --Wetman 04:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL ok I just skimmed over this. Thanks for the heads up. -- 84.57.72.3 04:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RE: "differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups"

"These groups have published their own Bibles that differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups." This is not true regarding Mormons. They use the King James version of the Bible, not "their own Bible". --Alterego 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is correct concerning most LDS, but that is not true for the Non-LDS Mormons.--Josiah 03:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, it is not specific enough! --Alterego 03:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Renaming this article

A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory. A vote is occurring at Misplaced Pages talk:Conspiracy theory. -Willmcw 05:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

From what is written here, we are not dealing with conspiracy theories. If people in these groups have conspiracy theories about the Bible, they need to be explained in much moer detail. 66.155.200.129 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bible conspiracy theories form the cornerstone of some relatively modern Christian religious movements. Most notably The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see Mormonism), The modern day United Pentecostal Church (see the Jesus-Only doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism) assert that the Bible was deliberately modified (or at least carelessly allowed to be copied sloppily) to edit out what they consider to be the theology that supports their religious viewpoint. These groups have published their own Bibles that differ from Bibles used by other Christian groups. In addition these groups publish new books, which they hold are divinely inspired revelations, to support their translations.

Martin Luther, the Epistle of James, the Apocrypha and Armageddon

It may be worth note that Martin Luther suspected the Epistle of James to be a false book designed by Pharisees to introduce legalism into Christianity and undermine the doctrine of the Atonement (which, of course, the Roman Church had utilized to maintain control over it's perishoners).

Similarly, there is a mini conspiracy in the Evangelical community over the Apocrypha, in particular, the Book of Enoch (which some suggest was deliberately hidden, often in order to hide vital information concerning Helil Sheten and the nature of the End-Times, particularly in relation to the Nephilim and their connection to the UFO phenomena). Some have even shown curiosity over the Book of Jubilees due to Eschatelogical information as well. -- 69.248.43.27 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel was not in Israel

If it is, as it says, not a Bible conspiracy theory, why is it in the Bible conspiracy theory article? Especially when it is discussed at another article? Turly-burly 03:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of political correctness. If you want to understand it better, you could investigate on what very unwelcome persons such as Miguel Serrano (in fact a fascist) say; Serrano has also written about "The Visits of the Queen of Sheba" and C. G. Jung provided a forword. Foreigner

What does it matter if Serrano was/is a fascist? Does that make him wrong? Or just biased?--Tomtom9041 17:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tainted would be a better word.--71.242.127.31 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some say it was thought to have been whispered that...

"critical scholars think..."
"has been considered fraudulent by a majority of scholars..."
"...the Sophia of the title is, in gnostic thought, the female counterpart to Christ."
"...now considered genuine by a majority of scholars..."

I don't think this is an entirely accurate summary of the current scholarship. Could the editor add the works he/she used, and cite the claims to their authors? Tom Harrison 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to look up Sophia - Sophia (gnosticism). I think this shows how little attention is paid by some editors to current scholarship, and even to obvious wikipedia articles. Clinkophonist 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've specified my requests for citation with {{fact}} tags. Tom Harrison 22:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! ManofRenown87 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing.Minidoxigirli 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, because frankly, a resounding laugh is all I have to say about this entire article. ManofRenown87 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this article needs work, but why laugh at this article? Is it because it contradicts your beliefs? - Greg - 12:01PM - 23 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.76.202.244 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Honestly I think most conspiracies are just ridiculously hilarious and overbearing examples of suspicion and paranoia thought up by a bunch of malignant intellectuals with nothing better to do because their jobs are terribly boring. But on the other side of things, I am a Bible believing Christian with a very childlike faith, and I do suppose that's part of why I laugh about it, but most of it's just an aspect of common sense. I'll also admit to a small bit of immaturity on my part. I'm not the most mature person when it comes to intellectual debates (not arguments). That immaturity might also have contributed to my laughter. Although, maturity has nothing to do with intelligence. But you know what? There will probably be a million things we'll never know, like whether or not Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene (even though she was as old as his mother), or whether or not there's a heaven or a hell. I suppose that is until we die, we won't know. So maybe we will find out the truth one day, won't we? ManofRenown87 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Constantine

This article doesn't seem to mention the common conspiracy theories of the Roman emperor Constantine supposedly imposing changes in the Bible onto the early 4th-century A.D. Church. AnonMoos 08:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because that is not a common conspiracy theory. Constantine had nothing to do with compiling the canonical scripture in the Bible as we know it today. That notion was first and only proposed by Dan Brown in his book The Da Vinci Code, in which it was a plot device he used to explain certain historical inconsistencies. The theory itself can be disproven by any 1st century historian who does not have his head stuck in his own rear end. ManofRenown87 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are sooooo incorrect ManofRenown87, try some researching. Conspiracies didn't start with Dan Brown. He just popularised them.--71.242.127.31 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would like someone to reseach most of the stuff in this article... there is a distinct lack of citation. If Dan Brown didn't come up with the Constantine stuff, then who did? Blueboar 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question... ManofRenown87 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And to anonymous user-dude, I didn't say "conspiracy theories started with Dan Brown" did I? Well the answer is no. Conspiracy theory is a very broad term, this article is talking about BIBLICAL conspiracy theories, not just conspiracy theories in general. What I said was that Dan Brown invented the notion that Constantine had anything to do with compiling the canonical Bible, and you should try some researching yourself if you actually think he did. Constantine never touched the canonical Bible. Say what you mean if you want people to take your counter-points seriously, or shut up. ManofRenown87 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Information about Bernard of Clairvaux

In fact, it was not Bernard who founded the cistercian order, as the article says. He was one of the most important thinkers of it, he was from one of the early generations of cistercian monks, but he wasn't the founder - the founder was Robert of Molesme.

David Icke and Joseph atwill

I separated the text in the section entitled "The Bible As A Lie: The New Testament" so that the David Icke text and the Joseph Atwill text are not mixed up together. As it stood, it was not representative of Atwill's writing in Caesar's Messiah. I left Icke's text alone, as I cannot comment on what is written about him. --SFDan 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

This article has a serious issue with the lack of sources. It does not surprise me that someone somewhere has come up with each of these theories, but none of them are cited. The only source listed in the references section is the bible (and that only indirectly)... the rest is more along the lines of "footnoted commentary". Please, locate reliable sources to back up the information in this article. Blueboar 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

In the intro this article states:

A Bible conspiracy theory is any conspiracy theory that posits that much of what is known about the Bible is a deception created to suppress some secret, ancient truth. Some of these theories claim that Jesus really had a wife and children, or that the Knights Templar had secret information about the true descendants of Jesus; some claim that there was a secret movement to censor books that truly belonged in the Bible, etc.

I notice, however, that the section on the Knights Templar does not actually discuss them having any "secret information about the true descendants of Jesus". In fact, the section does not really contain anything about a Bible conspiracy as the article defines it. This information should either be added (with citations to who came up with the theory) or the section should be removed (along with the mention in the intro.) Thanks Blueboar 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one has responded, I will delete the material. Feel free to add it back with citations. Blueboar 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Knight's Templar were a bunch of European based war-mongers with some serious greed issues who were rumored to worship pagan demons. They didn't care about God, history or theology, they were in the Crusades for the wealth and power. If anyone had information about the life of Christ, it wasn't them. And if they did claim to know some terrible secret, what reason would anyone have to believe them? ManofRenown87 10:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! Nice rant. Did you clear that one right up, sources? More like Opinion. Cause I said so...nanny nanny boo boo!! --Tomtom9041 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Well... given the problems with citations mentioned above... perhaps the only way to get some work done on this article is the threat of deletion. I am more than willing to withdraw the nom if it looks as if some citation work is being done. Please review WP:ATT and get to work. Blueboar 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok... the AfD debate resulted in a 'Keep'. People feel this topic is notable, and even though virtually none of the material is backed by any source they want an article on this. That is a typical result for just about any page with the words "conspiracy theory" in it... and about what I was expecting. This is actually fine with me... I nominated it for deletion more to highlight the problem with lack of citations than to actually get rid of the article. I find that often the threat of deletion inspires people to work on the article. Unfortunately, I don't think my plan worked. The problem still exists. There continues to be a distinct lack of citations here. Looking forward.... I have added a bunch of citation request tags where I see a crying need for sources. Hopefully someone will add them. I will wait about a month, and see if anyone actually does so. If it looks as if someone is working on finding citations, great... if not, I will start removing unsourced statements and sections per Misplaced Pages policy. Blueboar 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to give us a chance. Some of us are busy doing other things. Thanks. --Tomtom9041 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy to give people a chance... but considering that I first raised my concerns about the lack of sources in this article last FEBRUARY (more than a month and a half ago) ... I think I have given people a chance. So... while I will give you yet more time... please move this up in your priority. The clock is ticking. Blueboar 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

removing statements without references

Last call folks... I need some citations and references. It's been two months since I first raised this issue (and two weeks since my last request) and still most of this article is unreferenced. I will start removing unreferenced text later this weekend. If I remove something you feel needs to be in the article, you can return it once you have located a source. Blueboar 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK... I have cut those things that were not even remotely referenced ... the article is basically gutted, so it will need some major clean up. I have left some material (primarily in the New Testiment section) where at least an author of a theory has been mentioned in the text, and where, thus, there is at least a potential that it could be referenced ... but these need actual citations to stay (simply claiming an author says something is not acceptable... we need a citation to where he/she says it). If they are not cited in a few weeks I will remove them as well. Blueboar 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even try checking the Wiki links in the article, most of which were already referenced, or did you just ignore them? Seems like you picked and chose your way thru, will revert the entire article.--72.78.136.244 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as picking and choosing goes... the only criteria I used was: were there any citations listed to back the statements. If there were, I left the material, if not I cut it. I made a judgment call if the article mentioned an author as that seemed to indicate at least the possibility of a citation being added.

As for the wiki links... no I didn't check them. The information in THIS article needs to be cited. If there are a ton of citations at linked articles then it should have been easy to add citations to THIS article during the two months that I have been asking for them. Feel free to add the material back WITH citations, but I will cut it again if citations are not provided. I am tired of being a voice in the wilderness on this issue. Blueboar 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well now Bluebaer, aren't we being pecular...um..er...particular?--72.78.51.222 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it refers to things which are conspicuously not supported by the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so it doesn't have to be neutral... AnonMoos 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In my interpretation of Misplaced Pages principles everything has to be presented neutrally and Misplaced Pages itself can not take sides (non-neutrality in the title is very bad). Any article is free to cite who and how many people believe X is "non-mainstream" but an article's title is different and requires an even higher level of neutrality. zen master T 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to be "neutral" between the hypothesis that the earth is flat and the hypothesis that the earth is not flat. AnonMoos 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropiate to put discrediting in an article's title, such things have to be cited and put inside the article. zen master T 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems quite appropriate to me to refer to a theory alleging that a conspiracy occurred as a "conspiracy theory", what else? There is nothing biased about that.Unfree (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced material - continued

Well, it has now been over half a year since I requested citations for a lot of the material in the "New Testiment" section... and no citations have been given. It is one thing to say that "according to Author X, such and such is true"... but we need to include a citation to where Author X actually says this. I will give it a bit more time (perhaps a week), but if no citations are forthcoming, I am going to delete the uncited material. In the meantime, I have added a refimprove tag. Blueboar 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion done. If you wish to return the material, please do so with citations per Misplaced Pages policy. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that I'm beating a dead horse here, but isn't the very notion of conspiracy theories going to make it difficult to find sources? I understand referencing is the cornerstone of Misplaced Pages, but I feel we've got to be a little loose here; I came to this page hoping to see a list of Bible-related conspiracies; what I found was a laughably underdeveloped article.

The article was Kept for a reason ... I think we should try to make it as thorough as possible, even without proper citation when necessary. But that's just me. Lawofone (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"I think we should try to make it as thorough as possible"... I totally agree... "even without proper citation when necessary"... absolutely NOT. Citations are vital in an article such as this. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2014

I came here looking for a list of the "Biblical Conspiracy Theories" specifically those that involve serendipitous "discoveries" of OT Books that helped OT Kings cement their "Right To Rule" as well as the Pauline & Constantine ones, and to see others referenced to kick start research into those topics, but apparently Wiki does not consider such topics "notable", definitely not "the suppository of all wisdom" to quote Tony Abbott, Australian PM. -- 13:58, 21 July 2014 60.242.247.177

Thiering

Barbara Thiering does allege that Jesus married and had children by Mary Magdalene, but I don't believe she suggests that there was a conspiracy to keep it secret. Instead, she says that the method of correctly reading the narrative recorded in the New Testament was lost.Unfree (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Earl Doherty: no conspiracy

When I first saw it, I was a little bothered by the inclusion of Earl Doherty's work in the "further reading" section. It seems to suggest that his theory is an example of the genre being discussed. Doherty does not, in any useful sense, advocate any kind of conspiracy theory.

The article does say that only "some proponents" of mythicism are conspiracists. I would like to see more emphasis on the fact that many are not, particularly including the handful of reputable and well credentialed scholars and scholarly lay people who support mythicism. Doug Shaver 02:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Shaver (talk • contribs)

KJV-only

Should the KJV-only movement be added to this page? It's a conspiracy theory that claims every new translation is corrupted. 190.104.121.171 (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity

James S. Valliant's book, "Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity," presents a controversial theory that aligns somewhat with the idea of a deliberate reinterpretation of Hebrew religion by Roman elites. Valliant and his co-author, Warren Fahy, argue that Christianity was created by Roman emperors as a tool to pacify rebellious Jewish populations and integrate them into the Roman Empire GarylynnM (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any knowledgeable person can see at a glance that it has very significant chronology problems. No Roman emperor wanted to touch Christianity with a ten-foot pole until after the reign of Diocletian (i.e. after 300 A.D.), by which time the traditions of Christianity were already in place. Furthermore, the Roman approach to rebellious Jewish populations was always to apply massve military might with maximum brutality, leading to extreme massacres and enslavements... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: