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)
Rome Created Christianity?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
Hi.
All of this collaborates with the Gospels.. However the Epistles go into more detail of the theology of Christianity. The explain the reasoning of Jesus's death and resurrection, they define the salvation for Christianity. They explain the fulfillment of the law through Christ, testify of the prophecies fulfillment...
I think the evidence clearly supports itself... The Gospels are full of real people, real places, and real events (and even mentioned in the Epistles and the Book of Acts). They are the explanations for the bibliography of Jesus, and the Book of Acts picks up on the spreading of the Gospels by the Disciples (the same people in the Gospels), and we have letters from these people that make up the Epistles...
From everything we know, there are historical people in the Gospels. The Kings, the Emperors, the governors, the head priests, the Disciples, the Jewish leaders, different historical groups like the Pharisees, Sadducee, the Samaritans. Every place mentioned in the Gospels are real places. And much of the events in the Gospels are collaborated by other evidence as well... If you want we can dive into specifics.
As far as we know all these things in the Gospels are historical, the people, the places, the events... What good reasoning or evidence does anyone have that would bring into question this?
every source we have from antiquity, all the way up to the 1800's, suggest Jesus really existed. There isnt a single source from antiquity that treats Jesus as if he never existed...
"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"~Bart Ehrman
Thats not true... The Epistles mention Jesus death, they specifically mentionm the crucifixion, they mention Jesus disciples by name that the Gospels talked of, they mention his brother James, they tell us of all the witnesses, they talk of specific instances in the Gospels, like the transfiguration is mentioned in 2 Peter 1:16-18, the resurrection is mentioned through the Epistles. They talk of Jesus's trial by Pontius Pilate in 1 Timothy 6:13. We have letters from Peter, James, and John, who are mention in the Gospels. And they also collaborate with the Book of Acts, which we also have many instances in the Epistles that directly mention events in the Book of Acts, which likewise collaborates with the Gospels...Jubal wrote: Hiya,
None of the letters give any historical details about Jesus.Tart wrote: When you say the Gospel of Mark is the only document we have on the Jesus story. That is just false... What we have in the New Testament is a collection of letters (epistles), we have a book on visions (Revelations), and we have the Gospels and the Book of Acts... Every single one of these books collaborates on the entire picture of Christ, not just one of them (Mark)...
Even the voluminous letters of Paul never once mention Mary, Nazareth, Bethlehem, or anything at all that connects his God Jesus Christ to an earthly life.
All of this collaborates with the Gospels.. However the Epistles go into more detail of the theology of Christianity. The explain the reasoning of Jesus's death and resurrection, they define the salvation for Christianity. They explain the fulfillment of the law through Christ, testify of the prophecies fulfillment...
I think the evidence clearly supports itself... The Gospels are full of real people, real places, and real events (and even mentioned in the Epistles and the Book of Acts). They are the explanations for the bibliography of Jesus, and the Book of Acts picks up on the spreading of the Gospels by the Disciples (the same people in the Gospels), and we have letters from these people that make up the Epistles...
The book of revaluations is visions of a prophetic future.Jubal wrote: The book of Revelations includes bizarre nonsense like a woman giving birth among the stars where a dragon waits to devour her child. There is no historical information about Jesus in there.
There is tons of things in the Book of Acts that are supported by historical evidence, just like the Gospels are full of historically support evidence of people, places, and events.. Would you like to go into them in more detail, for the Book of Acts?Jubal wrote: The books of Acts gives no more about Jesus than is found in the G. of Mark - not to mention being full of historical errors and being the most variant of all Christian books - the differing manuscripts of Acts are up to 20% different in length.
Well like i said, we have valid evidence in earlier books (the Epistles) that support the historical Jesus, and the historicity of the Gospels.. We also have a lot of other evidence that isnt in the Bible that supports the historicity of the Gospels...Jubal wrote: All the Gospels depend on the G. of Mark for the earthly Jesus of Nazareth story. Sure, some of these details turn up in later books - that's not the point.
From everything we know, there are historical people in the Gospels. The Kings, the Emperors, the governors, the head priests, the Disciples, the Jewish leaders, different historical groups like the Pharisees, Sadducee, the Samaritans. Every place mentioned in the Gospels are real places. And much of the events in the Gospels are collaborated by other evidence as well... If you want we can dive into specifics.
As far as we know all these things in the Gospels are historical, the people, the places, the events... What good reasoning or evidence does anyone have that would bring into question this?
Well i just mentioned a bunch of evidence, which if you disagree with i would encourage you to specifically point out what and why... The fact of the matter is, is that no one ever believed Jesus didnt exist (like it seems like you are suggesting with this "earthly life" Jesus thing)...Jubal wrote: The issue you missed is that there is no (allegedly) historical information about Jesus that does not come from the Gospel of Mark - which is why you didn't cite any, when to do so would have shown I was wrong.
Instead you preached apologetics
I'll leave it others to answer that
Jubal
every source we have from antiquity, all the way up to the 1800's, suggest Jesus really existed. There isnt a single source from antiquity that treats Jesus as if he never existed...
"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"~Bart Ehrman
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #62
viewtopic.php?p=934541#934541
So, from the other thread, it is obvious God did not create Christianity.
This leaves us with:
Who did?
It seems to me there is only one candidate.
So, from the other thread, it is obvious God did not create Christianity.
This leaves us with:
Who did?
It seems to me there is only one candidate.
