Rome Created Christianity?

[Tart]

There are a number of people who claim the Roman Government created Christianity to control the masses... Yet I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that supports this... Does anyone have anything?

The question for the debate: What are people thinking when they claim Rome created Christianity? What led them to believe this?


Answer: I dont think anyone who honestly takes the subject seriously, and has studied the evidence, would claim such a thing.

It is kind of crazy... You would think that any obvious truth should spread throughout society, like a wildfire. But it sees to be, that Christianity, and the obvious facts, seem to be suppressed by the masses, and misconceptions are asserted and supported by people even though they are obviously false... One of those misconceptions is Rome Created Christianity...

Does anyone have any evidence?

(And note, the compiling of the Bible is not creating Christianity, but that should be obvious for anyone who takes this subject seriously and has studied the evidence)

[Tart]

Ok, in reply to everyone who responded... This is certainly a lot of assertions you guys are claiming... Give us your evidence... If you think Rome created Christianity, that is the Roman Government (and not a Roman Citizen like Paul) then give us your evidence. If you are claiming that Christianity was created in any other way then what is talked about in the scripture, that is Jesus as the Messiah and Him Risen from the dead, give us your evidence. If you think the Roman government had any role whatsoever in writing anything in Christian documents, changing anything, manipulating documents (anything other then the compiling of already existing documents into the Bible), give us your evidence. If you feel that the first disciples were in anyway, secretly influenced by the Roman government, give us your evidence.

Lets not just believe things people say, but lets root out beliefs in evidence, after all atheism is adamant about that. We should only believe in things supported by evidence, and anything people imagine up in their heads isnt evidence of anything other then they have an imagination (willum)...

And please, can you guys give any good reasoning or evidence why the Roman Government, created the Christian religion and then killed people for not denouncing Christianity? That should be a big red flag in this debate, and you guys should explain it... Give us your evidence,...

[marco]

And please, can you guys give any good reasoning or evidence why the Roman Government, created the Christian religion and then killed people for not denouncing Christianity? That should be a big red flag in this debate, and you guys should explain it... Give us your evidence,...

You've disregarded most of what has been said so let's just disregard your call for evidence. Christ managed resurrections; it's hard for posters here to do it. The statement you make here is flawed in its use of the word THEN. Rome certainly persecuted Christians who did not curse Christ; they certainly put Christians into the arena. THEN they made the state religion Christianity. You got the order wrong.

[rikuoamero]

And please, can you guys give any good reasoning or evidence why the Roman Government, created the Christian religion and then killed people for not denouncing Christianity? That should be a big red flag in this debate, and you guys should explain it... Give us your evidence,...

You've disregarded most of what has been said so let's just disregard your call for evidence. Christ managed resurrections; it's hard for posters here to do it. The statement you make here is flawed in its use of the word THEN. Rome certainly persecuted Christians who did not curse Christ; they certainly put Christians into the arena. THEN they made the state religion Christianity. You got the order wrong.

That, and it's entirely possible that if there had been some sort of secret conspiracy to create Christianity, that not all of Rome (meaning the government and/or military) was in on it. It could very well have been that Pilate was in on it (it would explain why he is reported as being lenient on Jesus in the Gospels), but other than him...?

[Tart]

And please, can you guys give any good reasoning or evidence why the Roman Government, created the Christian religion and then killed people for not denouncing Christianity? That should be a big red flag in this debate, and you guys should explain it... Give us your evidence,...

You've disregarded most of what has been said so let's just disregard your call for evidence. Christ managed resurrections; it's hard for posters here to do it. The statement you make here is flawed in its use of the word THEN. Rome certainly persecuted Christians who did not curse Christ; they certainly put Christians into the arena. THEN they made the state religion Christianity. You got the order wrong.

That, and it's entirely possible that if there had been some sort of secret conspiracy to create Christianity, that not all of Rome (meaning the government and/or military) was in on it. It could very well have been that Pilate was in on it (it would explain why he is reported as being lenient on Jesus in the Gospels), but other than him...?

And is this totally based on speculation? Without any evidence but your imagination? I thought you guys are against that kind of reasoning.

Certainly Rome adopted Christianity in the 300's AD, (key word is "adopted")... I think we can safely say every book within the Bible was written before 100 AD... We have all the books, and we have their reasoning for the authors written testimony. We have the motivations clearly outlined being based on Christ and His resurrection. And what we dont have (at this point) is any solid evidence that would bring into question any of this. That the authors werent really who the books claimed, or that the motivation and reasoning they wrote of was any different then the claim... At this point there is nothing..

Do you guys have any evidence?

And if you think I ignored, overlooked, or didnt respond to an important position of you guys. Please bring it forth specifically so we can discuss it. My response was a general response to everyone, as there are many people here.

What evidence gives you reason to say that you know the motivations given in the scripture where something different then the claim?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 14 by Tart]

And is this totally based on speculation? Without any evidence but your imagination? You guys dont like doing that...

Exactly. Which is why you don't see me parroting Willum's pet hypothesis. I don't say he's right...but I don't say he's wrong, either. You don't ever see me saying what I said up above as though it's something I think definitely happened.
I did say "it's entirely possible", did I not?

By the way...since you apparently don't like things based on pure speculation and without evidence...where was Jesus born?

Certainly Rome adopted Christianity in the 300's AD, (key word is "adopted")... I think we can safely say every book within the Bible was written before 100 AD

Speaking of speculation and lack of evidence...

We have all the books

Well yes. The volumes that we hold today in our hands, like in this photo



have all the books that are in the Bible.
Did you mean to state a tautology, or did you mean something different...such as we have the original manuscripts, or something else?

What about all the books that are not in the Bible? Do we also have those?

and we have their reasoning for the authors written testimony.

And of course, someone who states a reason for why it is they write a work cannot be mistaken or lying or some other motivation. It just HAS to be exactly what they say.

We have the motivations clearly outlined being based on Christ and His resurrection. And what we dont have (at this point) is any solid evidence that would bring into question any of this.

To use your logic, the fact that Mars has been explored and shown not to have life, cannot be counted as evidence against the claim that Martian pods attacked Earth some decades ago.
To use your logic, the death of Abraham Lincoln in 1865 is not solid evidence that would bring into question someone's claim that he robbed a bank in 1880 after phasing through the vault door.

That the authors werent really who the books claimed, or that the motivation and reasoning they wrote of was any different then the claim... At this point there is nothing..

Then please tell me that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not written by the Elders of Zion.
To use your logic, the only time the authorship of a work can even be called into question is if one already knows that the author is someone other than what the work claims.

What evidence gives you reason to say that you know the motivations given in the scripture where something different then the claim?

So what...we should just go with what the scripture says just...because? Until such time as a conspiracy is actually brought to light, we just have to go with what the scripture says, what the scripture says is to be thought of as right, true, the default?

To make myself clear, I'm at the null hypothesis. I responded to this thread by giving a plausible scenario, I did NOT say that this is what I actually think happened.
I don't go with the motivations given in the scripture because I have no reason to think they are reflective of reality.

[showme]

The question for the debate: What are people thinking when they claim Rome created Christianity? What led them to believe this?

Christianity as we know it today came about through Rome's adoption of Christian beliefs as state beliefs. Christianity wasn't created there and then, for Christians had been around for a few centuries, but undoubtedly this caused Christianity to rise from humble beginnings to the state religion. The Christianity we have now is probably not the christianity that the apostles knew. The instigator of the various Christian practices was of course Jesus. Rome was initially contemptuous of the faith.

I would dare say, that I can think of no "Christian" practice that was practiced by Yeshua. For the most part, their practices are based on various pagan rituals. The last supper, on the Pass Over eve was turned into the observation of the feast of Astarte, and kept on the "day of the sun", Sunday, the day for the worship of the emperor's god, Sol Invictus. Their Trinity was taken from the gods of Babylon. The gospel of grace/cross, was taken from the self professed apostle, the false prophet Paul. Both the of the above conventions of men, were established at the Council of Nicaea, which was convened and chaired by the Roman emperor Constantine. Of course, Constantine is the beast with the two horns like a lamb, who was to deceive those "who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13).

[Tart]

[Replying to post 14 by Tart]

And is this totally based on speculation? Without any evidence but your imagination? You guys dont like doing that...

Exactly. Which is why you don't see me parroting Willum's pet hypothesis. I don't say he's right...but I don't say he's wrong, either. You don't ever see me saying what I said up above as though it's something I think definitely happened.
I did say "it's entirely possible", did I not?

By the way...since you apparently don't like things based on pure speculation and without evidence...where was Jesus born?

Well, Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem... Is there good reason to question that? Why would you say this is based on "speculation"? Do you think they were just guessing the location?

Certainly Rome adopted Christianity in the 300's AD, (key word is "adopted")... I think we can safely say every book within the Bible was written before 100 AD

Speaking of speculation and lack of evidence...

We have all the books

Well yes. The volumes that we hold today in our hands, like in this photo



have all the books that are in the Bible.
Did you mean to state a tautology, or did you mean something different...such as we have the original manuscripts, or something else?

What about all the books that are not in the Bible? Do we also have those?

Not quite sure what you are asking, but are you suggesting the Bible is based on speculation? Like people giving random guesses of what they think might had happened with no conclusive evdience?

Becuase im pretty sure its safe to say, when we read the disciples words they arent just guessing that, for example, Jesus might had been risen from the dead. They are conclusively saying that this happened, its not a guess..

Do you have good reason to question there reasoning? Or their motivation for that claim?

and we have their reasoning for the authors written testimony.

And of course, someone who states a reason for why it is they write a work cannot be mistaken or lying or some other motivation. It just HAS to be exactly what they say.

No... Anyone could be lying or mistaken about things... Do you have any reasoning or evidence suggesting they are lying or mistaken about what they testify?

We have the motivations clearly outlined being based on Christ and His resurrection. And what we dont have (at this point) is any solid evidence that would bring into question any of this.

To use your logic, the fact that Mars has been explored and shown not to have life, cannot be counted as evidence against the claim that Martian pods attacked Earth some decades ago.
To use your logic, the death of Abraham Lincoln in 1865 is not solid evidence that would bring into question someone's claim that he robbed a bank in 1880 after phasing through the vault door.

Ok, so you are implying that the Disciples concocted a wildly fictional story, because they were countering a argument in a debate on a internet forum..

(you see why false equivalences are logical facilities?)

That the authors werent really who the books claimed, or that the motivation and reasoning they wrote of was any different then the claim... At this point there is nothing..

Then please tell me that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not written by the Elders of Zion.
To use your logic, the only time the authorship of a work can even be called into question is if one already knows that the author is someone other than what the work claims.

No we can question the authors of any book.. Do you have any good reason to do so?

What evidence gives you reason to say that you know the motivations given in the scripture where something different then the claim?

So what...we should just go with what the scripture says just...because? Until such time as a conspiracy is actually brought to light, we just have to go with what the scripture says, what the scripture says is to be thought of as right, true, the default?

Should we just go that the scripture is wrong as the default "just because"? I mean, as Christians, at least we have some evidence saying something.. What it looks like your objections are, are based on absolutely nothing, pulled out of thin air and your imagination.

To make myself clear, I'm at the null hypothesis. I responded to this thread by giving a plausible scenario, I did NOT say that this is what I actually think happened.
I don't go with the motivations given in the scripture because I have no reason to think they are reflective of reality.

Kind of like how your hypothesis was pulled out of your imagination and gives no reason to think they are reflective of reality?

Kind of ironic really... This is why lots of people say things like atheism is based on blind faith... I think the Disciples reasoning make sense. That they show authentic beliefs and motivations. That their testimony is rooted in evidence, and shows divinity through Christ... And certianly you have given no valid reasons to question any of that, just your presuppositions that you think they are wrong.

Or is there any good evidence?

[Willum]

The Bible doesn't constitute evidence, science doesn't constitute evidence, what then, does constitute evidence?

Or "You will know it when you see it?"

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

The Christianity we have now is probably not the christianity that the apostles knew.

What do you mean by this? Are you referring to something specific you think is taught/believed now that wasn’t then? Or taught/practiced now that wasn’t then? Are you referring to basic Christian belief like Jesus was the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified and rose from the dead? Or are you referring to deeper understandings and practices that exist today are different than existed during the time of the Apostles?

AND if that is the type of thing you are referring to . . . what exactly would that prove? Why should we expect the Apostles to have known exactly then and there all that Christ intended them to? Didn’t He in fact say there is much more I have to say? Didn’t He in fact establish His Church and say, “He who hears you, hears me?� Didn’t He say He was sending the Holy Spirit to guide us in truth? So, wouldn’t it be expected to some degree Christianity today is not entirely the Christianity that the Apostles knew?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

it should be pretty obvious that there is no single coherent religion in any of this. The Roman Catholic Church was the best shot for this religion to become anything consistent, but even the RCC has lost all credibility.

You do realize your statement is a little late to the party, right? The Catholic Church was the best shot for this religion to become anything? Yeah, nothing amounted there, huh? It’s only over 2000 years later and Christianity is on every single continent on the globe. Not bad for a dozen men who existed before the printing press was even invented. LOL! Y’all really crack me up some times. Do you ever actually hear yourselves?