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)

[bjs]

Notably - we have no idea who wrote the critical seminal Gospel of Mark, which was obviously written by a very well educated person who knew both the Greek and Jewish religious writings.

The idea that “have no idea who wrote the… Gospel of Mark� is debatable. However, the claim that Mark was “obviously written by a very well educated person� has been so universally rejected that I have never heard anyone make that claim seriously.

Mark’s Gospel shows clear signs of a lack of education. He Greek is rudimentary at best. He appears to know both Greek and Jewish culture, but little more than what any Hellenistic Jew living in the Roman Empire would know.

Compared to Luke, or even Matthew, Mark’s writings reveal a lack of education. Only the writing attributed to John show as little knowledge of the Greek language as Mark does.

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_l ... el_of_Mark

http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-gospe ... -greek.htm

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... t-language

[bjs]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Jubal seems to have put forth the evidence in post two. With one exception, which I commented on separately, the entirety of the evidence that Christianity was developed by the Roman Empire is that Christianity developed in the bounds of the Roman Empire.

As I have mentioned in other threads, I consider the idea of Rome creating Christianity to be a conspiracy theory and nothing more. It cannot be disproven (because of course the conspirators destroyed all the evidence!), and that is all that is require for some people to declare it to be true.

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

[William]

[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?

[FarWanderer]

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."

[bjs]

[Replying to William]

Unless you are using some new definition of "conspiracy theory" I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you could elaborate.

[rikuoamero]

[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.

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".

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Willum]

[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.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Willum]

To repeat, the position that Christianity is false is to believe there was a conspiracy.

Indeed. And a rather humorous one . . .

[Willum]

[Replying to Willum]

To repeat, the position that Christianity is false is to believe there was a conspiracy.

Indeed. And a rather humorous one . . .

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

Imagine all the pride and death.
"I am willing to die for my god!"
When the reality is:
"I am willing to die for an imaginary friend."

Or the tragedy:
"Look at all those people who died so nobly for their god."
"Look at all those people we killed because they believed some wienie who said imaginary friend incited them to rebel."

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Writings

[bjs]

[Replying to Willum]

Let me be sure that I understand you 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?