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]

I mean if you guys are suggesting that the Roman Government created Christianity because Roman Citizens wrote the Books.. That would be like saying the American Government created the Anarchists Cookbook, because William Powell (the author) was an American...

We have no evidence that the Roman Government even supported Christianity for its first 300 years, and we have evidence of them trying to eradicate Christianity at that.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 40 by Tart]

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

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.
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?

No, if it was speculation, that would be like guessing where Jesus might had been born.. What we have, on the other hand, is where Jesus was born and reasons he was born there. The Gospel of Luke tells us, that Jesus's family had to go register for a Roman census in Joseph's home town. So they all went to do so, and Jesus was born while there...

If the authors were guessing, they might say something like, "we think Jesus might had been born somewhere around here... Perhaps Bethlehem"... But that isnt the case... They give a location, and a reason for the location...

But, furthermore, if they didnt know where Jesus was born, why even say so? Why not just leave out the birth place of Jesus, if no one knew so?

The evidence tells us where, when, why...

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

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.
Do not do as you have been doing and pretend that we don't actually have anything to refute extraordinary claims.

in order to get evidence that supports Christianity, we would need something that would actually support it, and not just whatever we want... The Christian claim is that Jesus was risen from the dead, and that no one else was. None of the Disciples, none of the believers throughout history, and certainly no one you know... Demanding for a corpse to be risen from the dead, like your grandpa or something, isnt a Christian claim... You are demanding evidence for Christianity, that isnt consistent with Christianity...

(i got to go to a work related activity, i might get to the rest of your post later)

[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."

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....

Wow really? No evidence? I guess I’ll just post it again.

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."

[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....

Wow really? No evidence? I guess I’ll just post it again.

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."

The quote you highlighted of mine was me speaking that the the authors of these books, the Gospels, do not seem to have ever been contested by anyone in the church. The traditional authorship has been consistent...

Although I had never heard of Justin speaking of the Gospels as "Memoirs of the Apostles" but in either case, the evdience supports that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels.

"memoir (noun): a historical account or biography written from personal knowledge or special sources."

Also, saying "Memoirs of the Apostles." could simply be lumping all the books together by the title... couldnt it? that seems to be what Justin is doing, heres a quote....

"and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are being read as long as it is allowable [every church service]"~Justin Martyr

Notice Justin is saying "the writings of the prophets", even though he has upwards of 16 books of the prophets, that he knows all have authors... Hes just not saying it, hes lumping the prophets together... Likewise, he very well may be lumping the Gospels together...

And more so, they might not had even been named, by their names now, back then. Yet it is entirely possible (it is actually mostly probable) that the first churches knew exactly who wrote the Gospels, and where they came from, and that goes with Justin Martyr...

Everyone in the church probably knew the people who wrote every book in the Bible. Paul, Peter, Mark, Matthew, Luke, these people are historical people in the church.. And the member of the church were probably the people who wrote the books... Its likely that they knew exactly who wrote what... Not only knowing "of" the person, but those in the early church probably knew the people first hand, who wrote the books...

I mean leave aside the traditional author for the sake of argument... These books were probably written by the first apostles in early churches... Where everyone probably knew who wrote it, even if it wasn't titled "Gospel of Mark".. It isnt like these books spawned outside of the churches, magically... They are a product of the first disciples within the church.... is that even disputable? And the church is in the prime position to have knowledge of exactly who wrote it... Is that disputable?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 40 by Tart]

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.

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.

Ya, so the evidence is the same as what is given in the scripture..

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."~Jesus

I was seeking answers for truth. I was realizing that pretty much everyone is full of crap, and then someone shared a prophecy with me, from the Bible. I wondered if it was true, and started investigating the evidence.

From there I ended up reading the explanation given in the Gospels. That from a seed of Faith you can move mountains, which changed my entire path in life. That you will be born again, that you will receive a spirit of God within you that you can test and feel. That sin will be revealed to you, repentance confirms your Christianity, and that you will be made knew and be God's handiwork, doing work God already mapped out in destiny before you as a path for you... If you knew what i know, you'd believe a corpse rose from the dead too...

The fact of the matter is, the Bible is the Truth. That is why i believe in Jesus, and him risen from the dead, even though i didnt witness it. There is a foundation for truth and knowledge and wisdom. Jesus is clearly the cornerstone of the temple, who changed our entire history, with our societies, our laws, our freedoms, the world. Jesus separate time periods, because He brought on the New Covenant which our society observes today.

The New Testament is solid. It reveals truth about our personal lives, and has the ability to transform lives, and to witness to peoples inner being. It shows solid reasoning for its foundations. It is probably the number one best book you can read to learn about the law, and righteousness, and sin. It reveals humanities role in our relationship with God. And the Bible reveals truth, and prophecies, about past things, present, and future. It is consistent with reality
and even reveals the motivations, and reasoning of the nonbelievers... I believe that Jesus was risen from the dead, because the Bible has been shown to be the Truth, which clearly cant be explained away... (certainly you have given no valid reasoning, or any evidence, confirming your doubt in the scripture... Just thoughts you pull out of thin air)

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?

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.
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.

Its the claim itself. We should take everything on a case by case basis... You are claiming Lincoln robbed a bank by going through a wall... But why? What is the motivation to say such a thing? Its certainly not rooted in any evidence. Its not you witnessing any miraculous event. Its not prophesied, its not life changing, it doesnt define our reality, it doesnt speak to us personally, it doesnt change all of history... No, it is to give a hypothetical argument in a debate, that you yourself dont even believe... You yourself dont even believe in such a random, meaningless story that you pulled out of thin air.

It blows me away you guys say this kind of reasoning and logic is the same as the evidence that supports the Bible...

But why? It looks like you pulled this question out of thin air, and not out of any evidence telling you so

Au contraire, none of the Gospel authors actually name themselves in the texts. Also, the phrase "According to" does not equal "Written By".

See post # 38 and/or 54

I think it is very reasonable, and likely, that these men were exactly who wrote the Gospels. Do you have any reason its wrong?

Please do not shift the burden of proof.
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.

You should want to be assured such a belief... What you shouldn't do is have presuppositions of doubt, out of nothing but your imagination...

It is clear you presuppose the Bible is wrong

I first presume it to not be proven true, which is the null hypothesis.
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.

No... Its not up to be convincing you.. That is just the sad fact... I am not the one responsible for your beliefs...

And also, it is unchristian, it is not consistent with Christianity that God should convince an unbeliever who isnt interested in being convinced.. That is profoundly unchristian... If Christianity is true, and you are truly in the null and not interested in seeking out answers, then you will not convert...

Jesus said "seek and you will find", not sit on your but and have someone convince you.

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

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 have the Bible, and its authority, and its raveling of truth (noted above)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 55 by Tart]

Ya, so the evidence is the same as what is given in the scripture..

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."~Jesus

I refer you to this thread
viewtopic.php?t=29754&highlight=

and then someone shared a prophecy with me, from the Bible. I wondered if it was true, and started investigating the evidence.

I have an idea as to how one proves a prophecy (should such a thing exist). How do you think such a thing goes down? First explain how such a thing is to be done, then explain to me the specifics of your situation.
I really hope you have something more for me than just "This is a prophecy in the Old Testament, and here it is in the New Testament Jesus fulfilling it".

From there I ended up reading the explanation given in the Gospels. That from a seed of Faith you can move mountains, ... I believe that Jesus was risen from the dead, because the Bible has been shown to be the Truth, which clearly cant be explained away... (certainly you have given no valid reasoning, or any evidence, confirming your doubt in the scripture... Just thoughts you pull out of thin air

I'm going to be honest with you here. My impression of those three paragraphs from you is that they are just word salad. It's all waffle. I'm not a fan of either salads or waffles. My eyes glazed over while reading it, as there's nothing of substance in there.
It's all just religious mumbo jumbo that one might hear in church.

Its the claim itself. We should take everything on a case by case basis... You are claiming Lincoln robbed a bank by going through a wall... But why? What is the motivation to say such a thing?

I want to know how one, using your logic, refutes the claim Lincoln robbed a bank in 1880.
When it comes to Jesus resurrecting, the fact that every other human body has died and stays dead isn't enough for you to doubt the claim, so how do you refute the claim that Lincoln robbed a bank 15 years after he was assassinated?

Its certainly not rooted in any evidence.

How do you know? Have you even asked for any? Is this a case of you tossing the claim aside as simply being too ridiculous to even entertain?

Its not you witnessing any miraculous event.

So if someone says a historical figure did something wondrous after they died, the person telling you needs to have witnessed it themselves? Funny, this isn't the standard you apply to Jesus and the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible died 2,000 plus years ago.

Its not prophesied,

Why does it need to be prophesied?

its not life changing,

Why does the Lincoln claim need to be life changing before you'll consider it? Also what exactly do you mean?

it doesnt define our reality

Do wondrous claims have to define or potentially define our reality (again, whatever that means) before you'll consider them?

it doesnt speak to us personally,

Again, what does that mean?

it doesnt change all of history

Why is this a requirement?

No, it is to give a hypothetical argument in a debate, that you yourself dont even believe

Does the fact I don't believe it myself change whether or not you'll consider it? There are plenty of things people have said that they have believed in, yet you don't consider them, so I fail to understand just why my own stance on the matter is a factor into whether or not Lincoln robbed a bank 15 years after his assassination by phasing through the vault door.

It blows me away you guys say this kind of reasoning and logic is the same as the evidence that supports the Bible...

It's the same type of claim. A noted named figure of some influence is killed, and then is reported to have done strange seemingly magical feats sometime after his death.
All that you have to go on are words on a page (or in this case, a screen) saying it happened.
Just like what I have with regards to Jesus. I just have the words on a page that say he came back to life, that he phased through doors, that he flew through the sky and walked on water etc.
It's really easy to say things like this, isn't it?

See post # 38 and/or 54

Not good enough. This is you supposing what the earliest Christians would have done, with nothing to actually back it up. You just speculate that there would have been a controversy if the authors weren't Mattew/Mark/Luke/John.

You should want to be assured such a belief... What you shouldn't do is have presuppositions of doubt, out of nothing but your imagination...

Translation - Be as gullible as possible.

And also, it is unchristian, it is not consistent with Christianity that God should convince an unbeliever who isnt interested in being convinced..

Points to former Christian usergroup
You were saying?

Please, do not tell me that I am not interested in being convinced. My activity on this website stands in stark refutation. Heck, I ask the most questions in the Ask a User section.

I have the Bible, and its authority, and its raveling of truth (noted above)

So all you have is a holy book. You have words on a page, and not anything concrete.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 55 by Tart]

Ya, so the evidence is the same as what is given in the scripture..

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."~Jesus

I refer you to this thread
viewtopic.php?t=29754&highlight=

and then someone shared a prophecy with me, from the Bible. I wondered if it was true, and started investigating the evidence.

I have an idea as to how one proves a prophecy (should such a thing exist). How do you think such a thing goes down? First explain how such a thing is to be done, then explain to me the specifics of your situation.
I really hope you have something more for me than just "This is a prophecy in the Old Testament, and here it is in the New Testament Jesus fulfilling it".

From there I ended up reading the explanation given in the Gospels. That from a seed of Faith you can move mountains, ... I believe that Jesus was risen from the dead, because the Bible has been shown to be the Truth, which clearly cant be explained away... (certainly you have given no valid reasoning, or any evidence, confirming your doubt in the scripture... Just thoughts you pull out of thin air

I'm going to be honest with you here. My impression of those three paragraphs from you is that they are just word salad. It's all waffle. I'm not a fan of either salads or waffles. My eyes glazed over while reading it, as there's nothing of substance in there.
It's all just religious mumbo jumbo that one might hear in church.

Its the claim itself. We should take everything on a case by case basis... You are claiming Lincoln robbed a bank by going through a wall... But why? What is the motivation to say such a thing?

I want to know how one, using your logic, refutes the claim Lincoln robbed a bank in 1880.
When it comes to Jesus resurrecting, the fact that every other human body has died and stays dead isn't enough for you to doubt the claim, so how do you refute the claim that Lincoln robbed a bank 15 years after he was assassinated?

Its certainly not rooted in any evidence.

How do you know? Have you even asked for any? Is this a case of you tossing the claim aside as simply being too ridiculous to even entertain?

Its not you witnessing any miraculous event.

So if someone says a historical figure did something wondrous after they died, the person telling you needs to have witnessed it themselves? Funny, this isn't the standard you apply to Jesus and the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible died 2,000 plus years ago.

Its not prophesied,

Why does it need to be prophesied?

its not life changing,

Why does the Lincoln claim need to be life changing before you'll consider it? Also what exactly do you mean?

it doesnt define our reality

Do wondrous claims have to define or potentially define our reality (again, whatever that means) before you'll consider them?

it doesnt speak to us personally,

Again, what does that mean?

it doesnt change all of history

Why is this a requirement?

No, it is to give a hypothetical argument in a debate, that you yourself dont even believe

Does the fact I don't believe it myself change whether or not you'll consider it? There are plenty of things people have said that they have believed in, yet you don't consider them, so I fail to understand just why my own stance on the matter is a factor into whether or not Lincoln robbed a bank 15 years after his assassination by phasing through the vault door.

It blows me away you guys say this kind of reasoning and logic is the same as the evidence that supports the Bible...

It's the same type of claim. A noted named figure of some influence is killed, and then is reported to have done strange seemingly magical feats sometime after his death.
All that you have to go on are words on a page (or in this case, a screen) saying it happened.
Just like what I have with regards to Jesus. I just have the words on a page that say he came back to life, that he phased through doors, that he flew through the sky and walked on water etc.
It's really easy to say things like this, isn't it?

See post # 38 and/or 54

Not good enough. This is you supposing what the earliest Christians would have done, with nothing to actually back it up. You just speculate that there would have been a controversy if the authors weren't Mattew/Mark/Luke/John.

You should want to be assured such a belief... What you shouldn't do is have presuppositions of doubt, out of nothing but your imagination...

Translation - Be as gullible as possible.

And also, it is unchristian, it is not consistent with Christianity that God should convince an unbeliever who isnt interested in being convinced..

Points to former Christian usergroup
You were saying?

Please, do not tell me that I am not interested in being convinced. My activity on this website stands in stark refutation. Heck, I ask the most questions in the Ask a User section.

I have the Bible, and its authority, and its raveling of truth (noted above)

So all you have is a holy book. You have words on a page, and not anything concrete.

rikuoamero, you are saying that anyone who believes in the Resurrection should have no objections to your fictional hypothetical story about Lincoln.. It is a false equivalence, flat out... That is a logical fallacy...

Also, the statement "Seek and you will find"~Jesus, is a statement that I believe is true. I observe this statement as true in my life, and true in others, and i havent been given any verifiable evidence that it isnt true. Only claims that cant be verified.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 57 by Tart]

rikuoamero, you are saying that anyone who believes in the Resurrection should have no objections to your fictional hypothetical story about Lincoln.. It is a false equivalence, flat out... That is a logical fallacy...

No, not anyone.
You.
My story about Lincoln is in direct response to your assertion that even though every other single human has lived and died and stays dead, that somehow this isn't enough to cast doubt on the claim Jesus resurrected.

Also, the statement "Seek and you will find"~Jesus, is a statement that I believe is true. I observe this statement as true in my life, and true in others, and i havent been given any verifiable evidence that it isnt true. Only claims that cant be verified.

Do we need to redo the back and forth we had a while ago over this very statement?

[Jubal]

Hiya,

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)...

None of the letters give any historical details about Jesus.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Jubal]

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....

Not correct.

The Gospel now named after John was originally attributed to a gnostic Cerinthus and thus rejected.
Then it was claimed to be from 'John' and was accepted with open arms.

None of the Gospels had names before Irenaeus named them all around 180 AD.

Jubal