Did Rome invent Christianity?

Post Reply New Topic

Too many things in one thought there.

"Theology" is the study of whatever might be read, and the "New Covenant theology" found within "the NT Scriptures" has no conflict with Torah.

What are the verses that make you say what you say?

The Old Testament was studied quite well by the early disciples of Jesus. Hence, my usage of the word "theology".

I don't agree with you about the "no conflict with Torah" bit, but I don't feel like discussing it at the moment. Maybe some other time.

... but the later ones now seem to be drawing some wrong conclusions.


No one is required to do so.

I agree.

A lot of people here seem to think that the later ones had special access to the minds of those who wrote the NT Scriptures when in fact they were just simply driven by political/religious agenda, not caring for the actual meaning.

That's where honest secular scholars/historians come into play. And even they will have debates and disagreements among themselves. It's not as simple as science.

Agreed.

The second one that ruveyn stated was just the difference between James and Paul. The two cited a similar passage trying to make it come to a different conclusion. This often suggests dispute, as the claims are often considered harder to reconcile.

In any case, I agree with JacobVirgil, as you are projecting conservative Christianity onto the Bible. I mean, as it stands, most people already are in agreement that the conservative view of scripture is wrong. There are disputes. There are also forgeries, as a recent book by Bart Ehrman talks about. http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/ ... hrman.html Note, in the review it is stated: "Ehrman turns his attention to 2 Peter, indicating that there is little disagreement among scholars about this letter not having been written by Peter. Very brief arguments against authenticity are offered, before turning to a more substantive and general issue: the unlikelihood that the historical Peter could read and write Greek."

Now, I might not be a good representative of NT scholarship, as I am not an NT scholar, but if you accept that secular scholars are sources to be surrendered to, despite one's background knowledge, and they all generally agree with the claim 2 Peter is a forgery, then I think you have to back down, and I also think that you have to re-examine your background knowledge, as I don't think you have fully escaped from conservative Christian scriptural beliefs, as a lot of the things you have tried to promote, have been explicitly rejected by non-conservatives of a scholarly background. (The instant canonization idea, for instance, was attacked in a Spong book I was reading a few days ago)

Well, ok, but then I'd advise actually listening to them, rather than just talking big about them.

Little disagreement doesn't mean full agreement. I choose to agree with the scholars who disagree with Bart Ehrman in certain issues.

And you sure like to talk big but you really don't know where I'm coming from.

AG -

He's got you there. I sure don't know.

Why do you presume "verses" make him say anything?

hey fellas-

let all read the Anxiety of Influence

and call it a day.

-Jake

Oops ... so then we must each remain within our own little boxes of influenced thought?!

Nah ...

Did Rome invent Christianity? Yes, Rome invented Italian Christianity which is only a thinly disguised wolf in sheep's clothing replacement of the godless Caesar Emperors of Rome. Italian Christianity is a group of greedy extremist religious theater actors who want money so they dress up and say nice things in exchange for collection plate money; if people disagree with them - like the Roman emperors they are ruthless and godless: no questions allowed, convert or die so to speak. (Spanish Inquisition, burning heretics at the stake, etc.).

- Politics, Philosophy, Religions

Sometimes, you have to wonder if money changed hands...

Nothing new about that, eh?!