Talk:Bible conspiracy theory

message: "(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)
thread_title:  Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail 

message: trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/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)
thread_title:  proper place for conspiracies to run free 

message: "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)
replies: text: LOL ok I just skimmed over this. Thanks for the heads up. -- 84.57.72.3 04:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Councils and the canon

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Martin Luther]], the ''[[Epistle of James]]'', the [[Apocrypha]] and [[Armageddon]] 

message: *"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 Talk 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've specified my requests for citation with  tags. Tom Harrison Talk 22:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some say it was thought to have been whispered that... 

message: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! ManofRenown87 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing.Minidoxigirli 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Umm... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Constantine

message: 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)
thread_title:  David Icke and Joseph atwill 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Knights Templar 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia policy. Blueboar 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have to give us a chance. Some of us are busy doing other things. Thanks. --Tomtom9041 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In my interpretation of Wikipedia principles everything has to be presented neutrally and Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something 

message: 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)
thread_title: Thiering

message: 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)
thread_title:  Earl Doherty: no conspiracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  KJV-only