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)

[showme]

[Replying to post 22 by bjs]

I, personally, put no stock in conspiracy theories like this one.

The bible itself has many conspiratory aspects to it. How do you reconcile your obvious preferences as to which to believe and which to reject?

Indeed since there are two ultimate options, Judeo-Christianity is true or false, this leaves us with the Bible's conspiracies, that come from Jesus own mouth in many cases ("Tell no one what I have done..."), or that the entire story is a conspiracy of some sort.

Either way, not putting stock in conspiracy (theories), isn't much of an opinion.
To repeat, the position that Christianity is false is to believe there was a conspiracy.

To believe that "Christianity" is based on a false gospel of grace, is to believe that the "dragon" has given his authority to the beast with two horns like a lamb, and that that beast and his two Christ like horns were used to deceive "those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13). That would be to say, that the message of the serpent, that you surely shall not die (Genesis 3:3), has been swallowed by the "many", and that they will die nevertheless (Matthew 7:13). Apparently everyone was forewarned, and failed to heed the message.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 30 by bjs]

Inane question, read the topic. It is only three pages, you'll be brought up to speed.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 31 by showme]

To believe that "Christianity" is based on a false gospel of grace, is to believe that the "dragon" has given his authority to the beast with two horns like a lamb, and that that beast and his two Christ like horns were used to deceive "those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13).

Unfortunately, it is also to be sane.
Revelation calls sanity madness, and madness reasonable.
And people who believe anything they read, believe it.

[bjs]

[Replying to Willum]

It is a clarification question. Trying answering it.

[Clownboat]

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,...

First, ask yourself how all other religions are formed. Were they formed by men or by the gods?
Next, ask yourself if it's likely that men, possibly Roman men were involved in the founding of Christianity, or is it more likely that this one religion out of all religions was actually created due to a real god concept being behind it.

[Willum]

[Replying to Willum]

Let me be sure that I understand you[r] position. Are you suggesting that, assuming Christianity is false, Jesus and/or the biblical writers conspired to trick people into believing that it is true?

No, you do not understand my position. Indeed, my position is not the topic of the conversation.
Please review the OP, and refrain from personal inclusions.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Willum]

I think the only reason Judeo-Christianity survives is because how stupid people would feel when they discover it is wrong.

LOL! Do you have any idea how discrediting that is of your fellow man? Some of the most intelligent minds that ever existed deeply believed in the Christian faith. Your “theory� also doesn’t explain the number of converts who sought out the faith on their own.

In any case, your video assumes that the disciples existed. There is no proof they did, and growing proof they were fabrications.

Historians disagree with you.

[Tart]

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

The books (I presume you mean the gospels) don't even make claims about their own authorship.

The only explicit connection they have to their traditional authors is their titles, which all read "The Gospel According to X", where X is Mark/Matthew/Luke/John. Does this sound like the authors were the ones to title these books?

As Bart Ehrman says in his book, Forged:

When the Gospels of the New Testament are alluded to and quoted by authors of the early second century, they are never entitled, never named. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. For Justin, these books are simply known, collectively, as the "Memoirs of the Apostles."

Well when i talk of known authorship of the Bible, i am usually referring to the Epistles, as the authors are pinned in nearly every Epistle.

However, the Gospels are disputed for the mane reason that they are not pinned to any one author... However, there is evidence to support that the traditional authorship given to the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) is likely to be correct. That is, that these people really existed, we have evidence telling us all of these men existed and they were known in the early Churches. It could very possibly be that the early churches proclaimed which men wrote which Gospels. It could have spread by word of mouth, or during sermons. We dont have any evidence of those traditions ever changing for any reason....

I think it is probably likely that the traditional authors given to each Gospels, are probably correct. And i certainly havent seen any evidence questioning this.

We have real people in the early church (Matthew Mark Luke and John), and we have books that really exist which had to come from someone... Further more, the authors of these books knew they wrote the book, and their acquaintances probably likewise knew who wrote them, which is likely where the tradition arises.

The early church, and the people in the church, are the exact people who would have known this and would be in the position of definitively naming an author... The tradition is likely to be accurate...


But why didnt the authors name their names? I think it may be because that it was a collaboration of witnesses that contributed to the Gospels. Like a research project with many people as sources, and Mark may have just been the guy who wrote it down. That may be possible.

[bjs]

[Replying to Willum]

Let me be sure that I understand you[r] position. Are you suggesting that, assuming Christianity is false, Jesus and/or the biblical writers conspired to trick people into believing that it is true?

No, you do not understand my position. Indeed, my position is not the topic of the conversation.
Please review the OP, and refrain from personal inclusions.

Very well.

The OP addressed the idea of the Roman Empire creating Christianity. In the OP Tart said it well: "One of those misconceptions is Rome Created Christianity." The whole thing is a conspiracy theory and should rightly be dismissed as such.

The suggestion, brought up by Willum, that Christianity is in some way a conspiracy theory is fundamentally false on every level. Since Willum has declared that this not the topic of conversation (despite him being the one who brought it up to begin with), I will make no further comment on it in this thread.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 17 by Tart]

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?

I'm making a point. What evidence do you have that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Go on, tell me.

You know the evidence, it is the testimony of the witnesses, the Bible..

but are you suggesting the Bible is based on speculation?

No, my point there was that you just tossed in that every book in the Bible was written before 100 AD without providing any evidence that that claim is true, hence why I said "speaking of speculation and lack of evidence".

Isnt that kind of common knowledge? Would you like a source for that? Becuase I can give many.. I dont know why you think this is based on speculation. We have evidence...

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?

If someone testifies to you that their friend phased through a solid steel bank vault door, does the fact people cannot phase through said doors not suggest to you that perhaps that person is lying or mistaken or something?
Or are you credulous?

I don't get this logic from you, this line of thinking "People said it happened, and we have nothing to actually refute what they said!"

You are bringing up a discussion about the presuppositions people hold. You are suggesting that we should just disbelieve claims that may be extraordinary, from the start... Personally I dont think that is a good presupposition to hold. I think our universe and the human conscious are far more mysterious with many wonders, then to just assume they are all wrong...

If someone came to me claiming an extraordinary claim, I would have to judge it in a case by case circumstance, and determine its validity that way. Which is what I did with the Bible. I wasnt convinced until the witnesses convinced me. It turned me Christian, and is the foundation of my believe in a God.

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..

Abraham Lincoln robbed a bank in 1880 by phasing through the vault door.

Using your logic, show me how I am wrong to say such.

You mean, when you pull this story out of thin air, where you are motivated to counter an argument in a debate... You think that is equivalent "logic" to the testimony of the scripture... How would you connect the two?

I always find it comical... Leave it to an atheist to make you disprove something he doesnt even believe in..

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

Great. I therefore question the authorship of the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Please show that these documents were indeed written by these men.

It is funny... You are questioning the authorship, as a presupposition. "Great. I therefore question the authorship of the Gospels..."... But why? It looks like you pulled this question out of thin air, and not out of any evidence telling you so... See this is exactly the problem here... Your beliefs are not rooted in any kind of evidence, but on your presuppositions...

Read my last post on the thread, post 38, for the authorship of the Gospels... I think it is very reasonable, and likely, that these men were exactly who wrote the Gospels. Do you have any reason its wrong?

Should we just go that the scripture is wrong as the default "just because"?

Did I say that?
Nope. Perhaps you should study up on the null hypothesis.

It is clear you presuppose the Bible is wrong.. Just like how you presuppose the authorship of the Gospels is wrong, pulling it out of thin air.. You can deny this, but your actions speak louder then words...

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

Exactly. Which is why I didn't bother to substantiate it with evidence. I wasn't giving it much serious thought, beyond merely saying it's plausible.
However, think about it. How is my scenario (well, Willum's really) impossible? Is there no way at all it could have been true? Is it physically impossible for Roman officials to have invented religions, or used religions for their own gain?

Is that what you believe? And why?

I am simply trying to make sense out of the existence of Christianity. I want to make sens out of the evidence, i want to know what objectively happened.. I am not interested in people claiming anything could be possible, yet having no evidence whatsoever... I want to know what HAPPENED, not whats possible.

And without evidence, and no objective reality in our world... No its not possible.