Christianity: Real Religion Or Government Propaganda?

[Lycorth]

Interesting article that proposes Christianity was invented by the Roman Empire to pacify violent Messianic sects in Palestine:

 

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

[Storm]

This news is a few years old if I remember correctly and it has been deemed very fringe and highly unlikely by scholars. I wouldn't put too much into what he is advocating.

[rjn]

Whatever the case, it sure has been used that way.

[mymistake]

Government propaganda can be a real religion.

 

 

As to the original question I was under the impression that Rome created Christianity because they wanted to culturally unify their empire.  The Messianic sects were burned at the stake as infidels or else turned into slaves.  Rome had hundreds of pagan provinces that needed to become a single culture.  And that is what Catholicism did.  Europe became united under a single religion and to a degree that cultural unification persists to this day.

[Geezer]

This news is a few years old if I remember correctly and it has been deemed very fringe and highly unlikely by scholars. I wouldn't put too much into what he is advocating.

Highly unlikely isn't the same thing as we have positive proof & evidence that has been validated as absolutely factual. I think it is at least a plausible theory or some similar events created the gospel story. Based on the numerous scholars & authors I've read, I'm convinced the Jesus story is a myth, and that no such person ever existed in the flesh. Exactly who created the Jesus myth and why remains a mystery.

[rjn]

Government propaganda can be a real religion.

 

 

As to the original question I was under the impression that Rome created Christianity because they wanted to culturally unify their empire.  The Messianic sects were burned at the stake as infidels or else turned into slaves.  Rome had hundreds of pagan provinces that needed to become a single culture.  And that is what Catholicism did.  Europe became united under a single religion and to a degree that cultural unification persists to this day.

 

But much of the elite (as well as most of the rural population, even after Constantine, hence the name "pagan" which means "country dweller". "Heathen" has roughly the same meaning. Only rednecks stayed true to old ways!) clinged to the traditional Roman religion. I don't think it was until after Constantine that this became a reality, and even then it was met with much resistance from both high and low. Rome's transition into a Christian Empire wasn't completed until at least the late 5th or early 6th century, when the last "pagan" philosophical schools were closed down, and even then there were remnants of pagans, especially in the less urbanized areas. Christianity was very much an urban religion for much of its early history. The same pattern can be observed just about anywhere were a large scale conversion of the populace took place. In any case, Christianity sure is a better tool for control than the multitude of religions that co-existed in the Empire before it.

 

 

This news is a few years old if I remember correctly and it has been deemed very fringe and highly unlikely by scholars. I wouldn't put too much into what he is advocating.

Highly unlikely isn't the same thing as we have positive proof & evidence that has been validated as absolutely factual. I think it is at least a plausible theory or some similar events created the gospel story. Based on the numerous scholars & authors I've read, I'm convinced the Jesus story is a myth, and that no such person ever existed in the flesh. Exactly who created the Jesus myth and why remains a mystery.

 

 

I think there may have been a historical Jesus, but he was probably quite different from what the Gospels describe. I choose to go with Bart Ehrman on this. I sure hope we dig up some more interesting pieces of the puzzle soon though, before we have an Evangelical in the Oval with access to the Red Button! ^^

[Vigile]

The problem with conspiracy theorists is they feel the need to go too far and imagine nefarious groups of men conspiring in dark rooms to control the world. It blunts Occam's razor. 

 

There was no need for the Romans to invent a religion. They had plenty to choose from and it looks like that's exactly what they did.  

 

Burton Mack, however, wrote a pretty good explanation of how the religion actually shaped itself originally as a political movement that united sects against the Romans in a time when competing religions were exclusive. 

[rjn]

The problem with conspiracy theorists is they feel the need to go too far and imagine nefarious groups of men conspiring in dark rooms to control the world. It blunts Occam's razor. 

 

There was no need for the Romans to invent a religion. They had plenty to choose from and it looks like that's exactly what they did.  

 

Burton Mack, however, wrote a pretty good explanation of how the religion actually shaped itself originally as a political movement that united sects against the Romans in a time when competing religions were exclusive. 

 

This is what I think as well. Constantine and those after him were mainly opportunistic and pragmatic, and Christianity, with its one God, one truth and rejection of the wordly suited their needs quite well. Instill the populace with guilt and fear, teach them that this life is worthless and promise them a big pie in the sky.

[Storm]

 

This news is a few years old if I remember correctly and it has been deemed very fringe and highly unlikely by scholars. I wouldn't put too much into what he is advocating.

Highly unlikely isn't the same thing as we have positive proof & evidence that has been validated as absolutely factual. I think it is at least a plausible theory or some similar events created the gospel story. Based on the numerous scholars & authors I've read, I'm convinced the Jesus story is a myth, and that no such person ever existed in the flesh. Exactly who created the Jesus myth and why remains a mystery.

 

I listened to a podcast by (I believe it was) Robert Price on The Thinking Atheist. He basically debunked this. If I remember correctly, you are a Price fan. You can read a brief critique by Price on this very topic here

[Geezer]

Thanks for bursting my bubble Storm. Just kidding. There may or may not be elements of truth in the posted theory. I may be wrong but I think Blood posted something about the Gospels being myths that were created for a specific purpose by religious elites.

 

Like I said, I might be wrong about that, hopefully Blood will enlighten me & correct any misconceptions I have about his position on that subject.

 

And I will definitely read the link you posted. I am interested in what Price thinks about this guys theory.

[mymistake]

The problem with conspiracy theorists is they feel the need to go too far and imagine nefarious groups of men conspiring in dark rooms to control the world. It blunts Occam's razor. 

 

There was no need for the Romans to invent a religion. They had plenty to choose from and it looks like that's exactly what they did.  

 

Burton Mack, however, wrote a pretty good explanation of how the religion actually shaped itself originally as a political movement that united sects against the Romans in a time when competing religions were exclusive. 

 

 

It's not a conspiracy theory.  The way early Roman Christians persecuted and exterminated other kinds of "unorthodox" Christians and burned all their written work is a matter of history.  Rome's army is what controlled the world, not some conspiracy.

[BarbarousBill]

Maybe the Dude was invented to pacify Americans?

[Vigile]

 

The problem with conspiracy theorists is they feel the need to go too far and imagine nefarious groups of men conspiring in dark rooms to control the world. It blunts Occam's razor. 

 

There was no need for the Romans to invent a religion. They had plenty to choose from and it looks like that's exactly what they did.  

 

Burton Mack, however, wrote a pretty good explanation of how the religion actually shaped itself originally as a political movement that united sects against the Romans in a time when competing religions were exclusive. 

 

 

It's not a conspiracy theory.  The way early Roman Christians persecuted and exterminated other kinds of "unorthodox" Christians and burned all their written work is a matter of history.  Rome's army is what controlled the world, not some conspiracy.

 

 

Huh? This has nothing even remotely related to anything I wrote.

 

Conspiracy theory is imagining Constantine created, as opposed to simply adapted xianity is conspiracy theory. 

[BarbarousBill]

Interesting article that proposes Christianity was invented by the Roman Empire to pacify violent Messianic sects in Palestine:

 

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

It's fascinating to think about, but I don't think their government could successfully do that. I mean North Korea is totalitarian to the nth degree, and the people there when they escape don't proselytize for Kim. I just don't think government is able to do that without someone spilling the beans somewhere down the line.

[Geezer]

I see 3 possibilities for the origin of the gospel story.

 

1. The story is based on an actual person & real events that have been grossly distored over time. The current versions have virtually no resemblance to the real person or events.

2. The Gospel story & all the main characters in it are mythical. The authors & purpose of the story are unknown.

3. The Gospel story & ultimately Christianity was created for a specific reason, but the purpose & creators are unknown.

 

Others may have different theories, the ones I noted are the only ones I can think of that are plausible.

[mymistake]

 

 

Conspiracy theory is imagining Constantine created, as opposed to simply adapted xianity is conspiracy theory. 

 

 

Religions were usually created using ideas and themes taken from older religions.  It boils down to semantics.  Obviously the Romans took the name Christianity but in my mind it is the extermination of those who would not join that separates the new religion from the old.

[Vigile]

I see 3 possibilities for the origin of the gospel story.

 

1. The story is based on an actual person & real events that have been grossly distored over time. The current versions have virtually no resemblance to the real person or events.

2. The Gospel story & all the main characters in it are mythical. The authors & purpose of the story are unknown.

3. The Gospel story & ultimately Christianity was created for a specific reason, but the purpose & creators are unknown.

 

Others may have different theories, the ones I noted are the only ones I can think of that are plausible.

 

4. The gospel stories were cherry picked from hundreds of similar and competing stories, further obfuscating events.

 

What we do know is there is no contemporary records of the Jesus character, and anything we do know, is hand me down info written at least a generation later by self-interested believers. Only a kangaroo court would accept such flimsy evidence. 

[Geezer]

 

I see 3 possibilities for the origin of the gospel story.

1. The story is based on an actual person & real events that have been grossly distored over time. The current versions have virtually no resemblance to the real person or events.

2. The Gospel story & all the main characters in it are mythical. The authors & purpose of the story are unknown.

3. The Gospel story & ultimately Christianity was created for a specific reason, but the purpose & creators are unknown.

Others may have different theories, the ones I noted are the only ones I can think of that are plausible.

 

 

4. The gospel stories were cherry picked from hundreds of similar and competing stories, further obfuscating events.

 

What we do know is there is no contemporary records of the Jesus character, and anything we do know, is hand me down info written at least a generation later by self-interested believers. Only a kangaroo court would accept such flimsy evidence.

It is clear, as you noted, the Jesus story has many identifiable similarities with a host of other cultures God-man stories. The Jesus story is certainly not unique, and that is a huge problem for Christianity.

[Blood]

The problem with conspiracy theorists is they feel the need to go too far and imagine nefarious groups of men conspiring in dark rooms to control the world. It blunts Occam's razor. 

 

There was no need for the Romans to invent a religion. They had plenty to choose from and it looks like that's exactly what they did.  

 

Burton Mack, however, wrote a pretty good explanation of how the religion actually shaped itself originally as a political movement that united sects against the Romans in a time when competing religions were exclusive. 

 

It's a pretty crappy conspiracy theory. There is no reason to believe Christianity was an official religion in the Roman Empire until the 4th Century. So in order to believe the conspiracy, you have to believe that the Romans created an illegal religion and persecuted people in order to "pacify" them, which would be perhaps the ultimate example of reverse psychology. 

 

However, it is worthwhile to contemplate Christian origins that are not completely driven by the Biblical narrative. The Bible story of Christian origins is also extremely unlikely in my opinion. 

[Blood]

I see 3 possibilities for the origin of the gospel story.

 

1. The story is based on an actual person & real events that have been grossly distored over time. The current versions have virtually no resemblance to the real person or events.

2. The Gospel story & all the main characters in it are mythical. The authors & purpose of the story are unknown.

3. The Gospel story & ultimately Christianity was created for a specific reason, but the purpose & creators are unknown.

 

Others may have different theories, the ones I noted are the only ones I can think of that are plausible.

 

Those are very reasonable possibilities. 

 

My feeling is that some Greeks in Asia Minor or Alexandria converted to Judaism at a certain point, read their scriptures in Greek, became convinced this was the true religion, but rebelled against the Jewish hierarchy and absconded with the scriptures. This could have happened long before a "historic Jesus" supposedly walked the earth. The Jesus figure later evolved out of the need of this sect to distinguish itself from Jewish sects. They invented a "messiah" whose main message was that non-Jews (Gentiles, i.e. themselves) were the real recipients of God's covenant. They seized on the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE as a "proof" that God was on their side. Many foolish people believed them. The rest is history. 

[Lycorth]

 

The problem with conspiracy theorists is they feel the need to go too far and imagine nefarious groups of men conspiring in dark rooms to control the world. It blunts Occam's razor. 

 

There was no need for the Romans to invent a religion. They had plenty to choose from and it looks like that's exactly what they did.  

 

Burton Mack, however, wrote a pretty good explanation of how the religion actually shaped itself originally as a political movement that united sects against the Romans in a time when competing religions were exclusive. 

 

It's a pretty crappy conspiracy theory. There is no reason to believe Christianity was an official religion in the Roman Empire until the 4th Century. So in order to believe the conspiracy, you have to believe that the Romans created an illegal religion and persecuted people in order to "pacify" them, which would be perhaps the ultimate example of reverse psychology. 

 

However, it is worthwhile to contemplate Christian origins that are not completely driven by the Biblical narrative. The Bible story of Christian origins is also extremely unlikely in my opinion. 

 

 

I agree that's the more likely explanation. Still fun to kick about conspiracy theories from time to time. Shoot, Christianity is one of the biggest conspiracy theories, that this Satan individual wants to ruin everything in the known universe and that's the source of all evil in the world. That one's always good for a laugh

 

I also agree with Geezer's three possibilities. Myself, I believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth who, like many would-be messiahs and/or itinerant preachers of his time and place, had a following. His happened to be a strong following, and he was eventually deified by those who followed his teachings as the centuries wore on. An organized religion evolved around this zealous cult, either for genuinely devout reasons or purposes of control and exploitation - or both.

 

Either or, there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth was anything of the divine miracle worker or son of a god that the bible depicts him as.