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
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #41
I don't mean to speak for Tart, but, for me, I am willing to accept that Christianity is a social construct formed by men, just as is Judaism. However, I believe that the underlying Scripttures were a collaberation between Adonai and men. The Scriptures do not dispute that. It is stated, (2 Pet. 1:21) "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The important note is that they were not written based on the personal desires of men, but were written by men as they were inspired by Adonai. Even in HaTorah, any one who has engaged in any serious study, would note that parts are direct quotes of Adonai and others are the viewpoint of Moshe'. Now, that does not mean that the viewpoints of the writers of the Scriptures are not authoritative. It just means that they are subordinate to the direct quotes of Adonai.Clownboat wrote:
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.
Re: Rome Created Christianity?
Post #42[Replying to Tart]
No no no Rome did not create Christianity. The early theologians were 99.9% Greek. The imperial capital when Christianity became the state religion was Constantinople. The Greeks created Christianity. The divinity of Christ was decided by the Greeks at Nicea and the holy trinity was hammered out by Greeks in Constantinople. the earliest ecumenical councils were held in Greece.
No no no Rome did not create Christianity. The early theologians were 99.9% Greek. The imperial capital when Christianity became the state religion was Constantinople. The Greeks created Christianity. The divinity of Christ was decided by the Greeks at Nicea and the holy trinity was hammered out by Greeks in Constantinople. the earliest ecumenical councils were held in Greece.
Last edited by dio9 on Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #44
Hiya bjs,
An intelligent response !
Thanks bjs
Yes, you are right that Mark's command of Greek is rather poor.
But that was not my point at all.
Consider -
Elon Musk is considered a business genius (something I am beginning to doubt actually), but have you ever heard him speak ? His command of the English language is embarassingly atrocious.
My claim is that the author of Mark had read :
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html#1X
You'd probably be aware of Dennis R. McDonald's work claiming that the G. of Mark is a form of mimesis (copying) on Homer. Plausible, not certain.
We see that the G. of Mark shows far more than just a (poor) awareness of Jewish culture, and an (excellent) knowledge of Roman culture - it shows the author had read all the BOOKS. He already read Greek and Hebrew (probably Latin?) - maybe he knew five languages and Greek was his worst.
But 'Mark' could not possibly have been a hellenistic Jew who learned Greek literature like Homer :
The G. of Mark makes numerous mistakes about geography (e.g. Gerasene demons) and Jewish laws (e.g. divorce) and customs (e.g. trial before the Sanhedrin).
He was clearly a Roman who had read all the Roman's Greek books, as well as all the Jewish literature, and maybe more.
How many people in Rome were fully literate then ?
A few percent ?
How many Romans had read all the JEWISH literature in the first century ?
A few ?
(c.f. Roman Tertullian who describes discovering the Jewish writings only in the second century.)
How many such Romans could write chiasmic literature ?
Few.
All this places Mark in the rarest and most educated circles of Romans.
His poor Greek is an irrelevent red herring.
My claim is fully supported by the evidence - the author of the Gospel of Mark was a highly educated person. But his Greek was rather crappy - so what ?
Jubal
Jubal wrote: 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.
A response !bjs wrote: 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.
An intelligent response !
Thanks bjs
Yes, you are right that Mark's command of Greek is rather poor.
But that was not my point at all.
Consider -
Elon Musk is considered a business genius (something I am beginning to doubt actually), but have you ever heard him speak ? His command of the English language is embarassingly atrocious.
My claim is that the author of Mark had read :
- the Jewish scriptures
- Homer
- other Greek literature
- (added later: Paul's letters)
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html#1X
You'd probably be aware of Dennis R. McDonald's work claiming that the G. of Mark is a form of mimesis (copying) on Homer. Plausible, not certain.
We see that the G. of Mark shows far more than just a (poor) awareness of Jewish culture, and an (excellent) knowledge of Roman culture - it shows the author had read all the BOOKS. He already read Greek and Hebrew (probably Latin?) - maybe he knew five languages and Greek was his worst.
But 'Mark' could not possibly have been a hellenistic Jew who learned Greek literature like Homer :
The G. of Mark makes numerous mistakes about geography (e.g. Gerasene demons) and Jewish laws (e.g. divorce) and customs (e.g. trial before the Sanhedrin).
He was clearly a Roman who had read all the Roman's Greek books, as well as all the Jewish literature, and maybe more.
How many people in Rome were fully literate then ?
A few percent ?
How many Romans had read all the JEWISH literature in the first century ?
A few ?
(c.f. Roman Tertullian who describes discovering the Jewish writings only in the second century.)
How many such Romans could write chiasmic literature ?
Few.
All this places Mark in the rarest and most educated circles of Romans.
His poor Greek is an irrelevent red herring.
My claim is fully supported by the evidence - the author of the Gospel of Mark was a highly educated person. But his Greek was rather crappy - so what ?
Jubal
Last edited by Jubal on Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #46
Just saw this interesting new work that is relevant here -
"Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed"
by R. G. Price (not Robert M. Price.)
https://www.amazon.com/Deciphering-Gosp ... 483487830/
Neil Godfrey from Vridar reviews it:
https://vridar.org/2018/09/09/review-of ... s-to-come/
Here is his review :
" Although the author is not a professional scholar the content of this book by R.G. Price has been deeply and competently researched and in substance holds its own with any scholarly publication. It is presented in an easy to read colloquial style.
The “deciphering� in the title does not refer to any secret code but to a comprehensive, easy to follow presentation of how much each of the gospel narratives (focusing principally on the first written gospel, Mark) owes directly to Jewish or Old Testament scriptures. It is a common view among believers that traces of Old Testament passages in the gospels are there to “prove� that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. Price, however, demonstrates that these OT allusions are far more common than many of us realize and that the gospel stories of Jesus have been guided and driven by those OT passages. So deeply and thoroughly shaped by the Old Testament stories, prophecies and psalms is the first gospel, Mark, that Price is able to very reasonably argue there is no left-over room to think that those stories owe anything to oral traditions or independent stories of a historical figure.
Not only does Price demonstrate the way the Jesus narratives have been molded by OT passages and themes but he gives readers a very plausible motive for the first gospel having composed the story it did. Written in the wake of the Jewish War of 70 CE the first gospel (“Mark�) follows those stories and prophecies in the OT that speak of the failure and destruction of the Kingdom of Israel (despite the work and miracles of the prophets). The gospel appears, as a result, to have been written as a lesson to Jews who have been defeated by the Romans and lost their temple: the Jesus figure has been created as a literary device to tell an allegorical story of how the Jews brought destruction upon themselves.
Drawing upon the work of several scholars Price further shows that the Jesus in the first gospel has been modeled on the apostle Paul. For example, we know from Paul’s letter to the Galatians that he had a complex relationship with leaders of the Jerusalem church, Peter, James and John, so much so that he found himself at times in conflict with them for their failure to grasp the full spiritual meaning of his gospel. Compare Jesus’ close but also strained relationship with three leaders by the same names. Price identifies many passages that the Gospel of Mark appears to have derived from Paul’s letters.
Price adds some interesting new insights into the development of the later gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) and I was particularly intrigued by his explanation for certain distinctive differences between John and Mark and how in the anti-semitic Gospel of John the leaders of the Jerusalem church (up until the last chapter that many scholars believe was a subsequent addition) suffer far more severely than they do in Mark.
There are some areas where I have reservations about Price’s interpretations. Price alludes at one point to the arguments of Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier that Paul believed Jesus was crucified in the heavens and though I agree that this is a possible reading of the evidence, not only Pauline but also of related early texts such as , I do suspect that the evidence also allows for the heavenly spirit Jesus to have descended in fleshly form to earth for a very short time to be confused with another person on his way to crucifixion and be crucified in his stead, on earth. But this is a disagreement that is not central to Price’s argument. I also had some difficulty with Price’s suggestion that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew independently from a different version of Mark than we have today and think a better explanation is that Luke (really did) use and rewrite Matthew’s stories for different theological agendas.
On the other hand, I found Price’s argument for that thorny passage in Galatians where Paul claims to meet the “brother of the Lord� to be one of the more refreshingly persuasive explanations I have encountered. I now set it alongside my own view that the key passage was unknown until the late second century as one of the best accounts for it.
Concerning the title with its word “proves�, I know some people object that one cannot “prove� a figure did not exist. But that is clearly not so. Scholars have indeed proved that the William Tell of Swiss legend did not exist, for example. That’s because all the details of the myth are so completely explained as borrowings of other myths and the historical setting of the William Tell story does not change that fact of origin. Price has shown, I believe, that all the elements of the first gospel stories of Jesus are cogently explained as literary adaptations of passages from the Jewish Scriptures, along with allusions to Paul’s own life and teachings. And that’s where the whole story began.
As the creator and primary author of the Vridar blog I have posted in depth critical engagements with scores of scholarly works on Christian origins and several on the Christ Myth theory, and can commend Price’s book for its knowledge of the relevant content and range of views on these topics, and also for its very easy to read presentation of the arguments. "
"Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed"
by R. G. Price (not Robert M. Price.)
https://www.amazon.com/Deciphering-Gosp ... 483487830/
Neil Godfrey from Vridar reviews it:
https://vridar.org/2018/09/09/review-of ... s-to-come/
Here is his review :
" Although the author is not a professional scholar the content of this book by R.G. Price has been deeply and competently researched and in substance holds its own with any scholarly publication. It is presented in an easy to read colloquial style.
The “deciphering� in the title does not refer to any secret code but to a comprehensive, easy to follow presentation of how much each of the gospel narratives (focusing principally on the first written gospel, Mark) owes directly to Jewish or Old Testament scriptures. It is a common view among believers that traces of Old Testament passages in the gospels are there to “prove� that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. Price, however, demonstrates that these OT allusions are far more common than many of us realize and that the gospel stories of Jesus have been guided and driven by those OT passages. So deeply and thoroughly shaped by the Old Testament stories, prophecies and psalms is the first gospel, Mark, that Price is able to very reasonably argue there is no left-over room to think that those stories owe anything to oral traditions or independent stories of a historical figure.
Not only does Price demonstrate the way the Jesus narratives have been molded by OT passages and themes but he gives readers a very plausible motive for the first gospel having composed the story it did. Written in the wake of the Jewish War of 70 CE the first gospel (“Mark�) follows those stories and prophecies in the OT that speak of the failure and destruction of the Kingdom of Israel (despite the work and miracles of the prophets). The gospel appears, as a result, to have been written as a lesson to Jews who have been defeated by the Romans and lost their temple: the Jesus figure has been created as a literary device to tell an allegorical story of how the Jews brought destruction upon themselves.
Drawing upon the work of several scholars Price further shows that the Jesus in the first gospel has been modeled on the apostle Paul. For example, we know from Paul’s letter to the Galatians that he had a complex relationship with leaders of the Jerusalem church, Peter, James and John, so much so that he found himself at times in conflict with them for their failure to grasp the full spiritual meaning of his gospel. Compare Jesus’ close but also strained relationship with three leaders by the same names. Price identifies many passages that the Gospel of Mark appears to have derived from Paul’s letters.
Price adds some interesting new insights into the development of the later gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) and I was particularly intrigued by his explanation for certain distinctive differences between John and Mark and how in the anti-semitic Gospel of John the leaders of the Jerusalem church (up until the last chapter that many scholars believe was a subsequent addition) suffer far more severely than they do in Mark.
There are some areas where I have reservations about Price’s interpretations. Price alludes at one point to the arguments of Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier that Paul believed Jesus was crucified in the heavens and though I agree that this is a possible reading of the evidence, not only Pauline but also of related early texts such as , I do suspect that the evidence also allows for the heavenly spirit Jesus to have descended in fleshly form to earth for a very short time to be confused with another person on his way to crucifixion and be crucified in his stead, on earth. But this is a disagreement that is not central to Price’s argument. I also had some difficulty with Price’s suggestion that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew independently from a different version of Mark than we have today and think a better explanation is that Luke (really did) use and rewrite Matthew’s stories for different theological agendas.
On the other hand, I found Price’s argument for that thorny passage in Galatians where Paul claims to meet the “brother of the Lord� to be one of the more refreshingly persuasive explanations I have encountered. I now set it alongside my own view that the key passage was unknown until the late second century as one of the best accounts for it.
Concerning the title with its word “proves�, I know some people object that one cannot “prove� a figure did not exist. But that is clearly not so. Scholars have indeed proved that the William Tell of Swiss legend did not exist, for example. That’s because all the details of the myth are so completely explained as borrowings of other myths and the historical setting of the William Tell story does not change that fact of origin. Price has shown, I believe, that all the elements of the first gospel stories of Jesus are cogently explained as literary adaptations of passages from the Jewish Scriptures, along with allusions to Paul’s own life and teachings. And that’s where the whole story began.
As the creator and primary author of the Vridar blog I have posted in depth critical engagements with scores of scholarly works on Christian origins and several on the Christ Myth theory, and can commend Price’s book for its knowledge of the relevant content and range of views on these topics, and also for its very easy to read presentation of the arguments. "
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Rome Created Christianity?
Post #47[Replying to post 30 by bjs]
Are you unaware that many of today's CT's are biblically inspired? All that is being said here is that those who claimed conspiracy in relation to any opposition to their 'truth' are not exempt from being examined under the same light. so self imposed exemptions expressed as "I, personally, put no stock in conspiracy theories like this one." do not mean that the theory is incorrect because of that.
You not investing in an equally valid - I would even go so far as to say - a MORE valid CT because you have already invested in the belief that Christianity is truth personified, does not in itself mean the theory is invalid.
Exactly! And if one has invested heavily into belief that it is truth, one will naturally oppose such as invalid conspiracy theory.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?
Are you unaware that many of today's CT's are biblically inspired? All that is being said here is that those who claimed conspiracy in relation to any opposition to their 'truth' are not exempt from being examined under the same light. so self imposed exemptions expressed as "I, personally, put no stock in conspiracy theories like this one." do not mean that the theory is incorrect because of that.
You not investing in an equally valid - I would even go so far as to say - a MORE valid CT because you have already invested in the belief that Christianity is truth personified, does not in itself mean the theory is invalid.
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #48
[Replying to post 40 by Tart]
If we don't have named sources, then what do you have for where Jesus is born, if not speculation and a lack of evidence?
Do not do as you have been doing and pretend that we don't actually have anything to refute extraordinary claims.
When it comes to Jesus, the fact that bodies do not come back to life, doesn't count for you against the claim of him resurrecting for some reason. So what's stopping Lincoln from doing the same?
I need to know if your logic is consistent.
Also the fact that since I'm dealing with a huge set of extraordinary claims, I want to be as careful as possible. I want my i's dotted, my t's crossed. I want to make sure that the resulting belief (should I ever actually have it) is as solid as solid can be.
My research over the years has shifted me into the wrong camp, yes (I'm not going to stay at the null hypothesis forever after all), but if you want to convince me the Bible is true, the first place you have to start is with me at the null hypothesis.
Oh do go on. Please tell me who these witnesses are. I must be mistaken, I thought none of the Gospels According to X even named their sources.You know the evidence, it is the testimony of the witnesses, the Bible..
If we don't have named sources, then what do you have for where Jesus is born, if not speculation and a lack of evidence?
At the very least, demand evidence. If someone says their friend phased through rock and steel, demand that they show their friend doing just that. If someone says a body came back to life, demand to see a body coming back to life.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
Do not do as you have been doing and pretend that we don't actually have anything to refute extraordinary claims.
How do (mostly) anonymous people who lived thousands of years before you were born convince you that a body came back to life? I'm honestly curious as to what the process is here. You obviously didn't have a body resurrecting right in front of you.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.
It's called hypothesizing and using logic. Using the logic you have been using of late, tell me how one can refute the claim that Abraham Lincoln robbed a bank in 1880 by phasing through its vault door.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?
When it comes to Jesus, the fact that bodies do not come back to life, doesn't count for you against the claim of him resurrecting for some reason. So what's stopping Lincoln from doing the same?
I need to know if your logic is consistent.
Au contraire, none of the Gospel authors actually name themselves in the texts. Also, the phrase "According to" does not equal "Written By".But why? It looks like you pulled this question out of thin air, and not out of any evidence telling you so
Please do not shift the burden of proof.I think it is very reasonable, and likely, that these men were exactly who wrote the Gospels. Do you have any reason its wrong?
Also the fact that since I'm dealing with a huge set of extraordinary claims, I want to be as careful as possible. I want my i's dotted, my t's crossed. I want to make sure that the resulting belief (should I ever actually have it) is as solid as solid can be.
I first presume it to not be proven true, which is the null hypothesis.It is clear you presuppose the Bible is wrong
My research over the years has shifted me into the wrong camp, yes (I'm not going to stay at the null hypothesis forever after all), but if you want to convince me the Bible is true, the first place you have to start is with me at the null hypothesis.
What evidence do you have that the body of Jesus came back to life? You don't have the body...so what else could you have?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
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #49
[Replying to post 40 by Tart]
I want to know what happened too...however, I am unlike you in that I will not settle with something as being "what happened", simply because someone or some group of people said it.
Take a locked room meeting of any two (or more) famous people throughout history, where they go in, lock the door, no record is made, come out, and then something happens: a treaty is agreed to, or a budget, or something.
For example - Irish hero Michael Collins met with the last British Viceroy of Ireland in Dublin Castle in 1922, to receive the handover of the government from the British to the provisional Irish government. No press or journalists were inside the room when the two talked.
I want to know what happened. What you are doing is equivalent to someone saying that Collins performed an interpretive dance while singing Japanese to the Viceroy, who responded by quoting Mohican poetry, and going with that, without considering possibility.
Do you want to know what I think is possible? That Collins and the Viceroy discussed the challenge Collins and his colleagues now had before them, of running what was essentially a new nation. I'm not going to even entertain the possibility of Collins performing a dance while singing Japanese, unless someone gives me some evidence that at the very least, Collins could speak the language and that the Viceroy was one who liked to be entertained by having men dance for him.
You have let your desire to know what happened to start Christianity consume you to the point that you do not let yourself (or others) stay at the "I don't know exactly how it started" point.
I don't know how Christianity started. I have some ideas, one of which I opined about on this thread, but ultimately...a lack of evidence has me stating that I do not know. I can say with some confidence what did not happen, one of which being that a body did not come back to life.
The point I am making is that you have this book, the Bible, which claims how Christianity started, namely that Jesus came back to life, spoke to his disciples and then conveniently flew away, never to be seen bodily again. What do you have to back this up? Do you have the body of Jesus on hand, alive and well? What could even remotely serve as evidence validating the claim that a body came back to life, if not the actual body itself on hand to show everyone?
I'm replying to this in its own separate post just to show you where you're going wrong.I want to know what HAPPENED, not whats possible.
I want to know what happened too...however, I am unlike you in that I will not settle with something as being "what happened", simply because someone or some group of people said it.
Take a locked room meeting of any two (or more) famous people throughout history, where they go in, lock the door, no record is made, come out, and then something happens: a treaty is agreed to, or a budget, or something.
For example - Irish hero Michael Collins met with the last British Viceroy of Ireland in Dublin Castle in 1922, to receive the handover of the government from the British to the provisional Irish government. No press or journalists were inside the room when the two talked.
I want to know what happened. What you are doing is equivalent to someone saying that Collins performed an interpretive dance while singing Japanese to the Viceroy, who responded by quoting Mohican poetry, and going with that, without considering possibility.
Do you want to know what I think is possible? That Collins and the Viceroy discussed the challenge Collins and his colleagues now had before them, of running what was essentially a new nation. I'm not going to even entertain the possibility of Collins performing a dance while singing Japanese, unless someone gives me some evidence that at the very least, Collins could speak the language and that the Viceroy was one who liked to be entertained by having men dance for him.
You have let your desire to know what happened to start Christianity consume you to the point that you do not let yourself (or others) stay at the "I don't know exactly how it started" point.
I don't know how Christianity started. I have some ideas, one of which I opined about on this thread, but ultimately...a lack of evidence has me stating that I do not know. I can say with some confidence what did not happen, one of which being that a body did not come back to life.
The point I am making is that you have this book, the Bible, which claims how Christianity started, namely that Jesus came back to life, spoke to his disciples and then conveniently flew away, never to be seen bodily again. What do you have to back this up? Do you have the body of Jesus on hand, alive and well? What could even remotely serve as evidence validating the claim that a body came back to life, if not the actual body itself on hand to show everyone?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
Post #50
Ok Jubal,
Lets take a look at what you said in your first post. I agree with you on some things, and disagree on others...
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)...
For instance, there are references to events within the Gospels and the Book of Acts throughout the Epistles... This clearly collaborates with the Gospels.. (If you would like certain quotes id be happy to show you).
As far as we know, everyone in the Gospels and the Book of Acts are historical people. We have Kings, Priests, Governors, Jewish leaders, and the Disciples themselves... As far as we know everyone in the Gospels/Book of Acts really existed. Likewise, we have real locations, and we have events that are collaborated by other evidence. As far as we know, the Gospels/Book of Acts have real people, real places, and real events... The evidence suggests that eyewitnesses are responsible for writing the Gospels...
Furthermore, you claim we have no idea who wrote the Books in the Bible... But we do know.. We know Paul wrote most of the Epistles, we know Peter wrote some Epistles, John, James, Jude, we have all these people named as authors to Epistles. And likewise, if you read my post (Post #38), it is very likely that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels..
I mean, what evidence led you to believe we have no idea who wrote any of these books?
But i think we agree that Roman's write the Bible.. That is Paul... I think the only author we know of that is a Roman Citizen is Paul, the rest would be little more then speculating... But perhaps all the authors were Roman citizen...
To get from, Roman citizens wrote the New Testament to the claim that the Roman Government had anything to do with creating Christianity, that is a leap id like for you to justify... Christians believe that Romans Citizens (Paul) wrote many of the book.. What we dont believe, nore have i seen any evidence whatsoever, is that the Roman Government had anything to do with it. In fact, we have evidence that the Roman Government wanted to eradicate Christianity for its first 300 years of existence... We have solid evidence that the Roman Government tried to get rid of Christianity, and we have no evidence they created Christianity...
Thus, I see no reason to believe such claims that the Roman Government created Christianity..
Do you have any evidence or reasoning?
Furthermore, we have the reasoning and the motivation of why people wrote the Bible.. They are clearly defined in the Epistles. The Disciples flat out tell us why they wrote these books, and they show genuine beliefs in these things, that it is based on Jesus as the Messiah and His Resurrection...
Do you have any evidence that gives us any reason to believe the motivations and reasoning the authors who wrote these books is anything other then what they testified in these books?
