Did Rome create the crusifixtion story to justify murder?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Either this or they created the whole shebang. Jesus taught things while alive that contradict his supposed sacrifice on the cross.

Eh, no...
Go read up on the original Church Fathers, guys like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement who actually knew the Apostles. This whole conspiracy of Rome being involved in the creation of the bible does not jive with history, and is a bunch of nonsense bandied about by ignorant christian hate groups.
Start here if you like:
Wiki: Church Fathers

Rome did not kill Jesus.

In fact Pontius Pilates only concern was for no more riots to take place. As his 5 year stint had already turned into 10 years thanks to a few riots and other lawlessness issues.

So when told of Jesus breaking city speech laws by the church . He was dragged up on charges. But witnesses all said he ONLY ever preached outside the city gates. Bugger.

So Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the case and threw it out.

The Church demanded Jesus's death for subversion and blasphemy of the old testament. So the Romans were ordered to escort Jesus and his would be persecutors out of the city gates to avoid a murder to happen within the city limits and to stand guard at his death to stop a riot from breaking out.

originally posted by: Entreri06

Do we have any copies of Paul's writings from before the council of nicea? I know Paul being a creation of Rome is a very wide spread theory held by quite a few historians.

The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible outside of the fictional story of the Di Vinci Code. No knowledgeable historian believes this, unless they have an anti-Christian agenda.

Wiki: Irenaeus- Scripture
Scholars contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament Texts:

Matthew (Book 3, Chapter 16)
Mark (Book 3, Chapter 10)
Luke (Book 3, Chapter 14)
John (Book 3, Chapter 11)
Acts of the Apostles (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Romans (Book 3, Chapter 16)
1 Corinthians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
2 Corinthians (Book 3, Chapter 7)
Galatians (Book 3, Chapter 22)
Ephesians (Book 5, Chapter 2)
Philippians (Book 4, Chapter 18)
Colossians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
1 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 6)
2 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 25)
1 Timothy (Book 1, Preface)
2 Timothy (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Titus (Book 3, Chapter 3)
1 Peter (Book 4, Chapter 9)
1 John (Book 3, Chapter 16)
2 John (Book 1, Chapter 16)
Revelation to John (Book 4, Chapter 20)

He may refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not cite Philemon, 3 John or Jude

This was over a hundred years before the council of Nicaea.

Jesus's resurrection and subsequent conversations brought about the idea he had died for our sins.

And his disciples were told to go and spread the word.


Rome adopted it formally as a religion years later. And did try to give the bible structure. That body of scholars became the Catholic church.

Its not that complicated.

Well the thing is,you are moving the theology with the politics. God willed that the second person of the trinity became man and redeemed flesh. Being hated by man was part of that redemption because we were to beer shown that which is also in our lot.

Also, Rome was Christianity's main persecut or for afew centuries. The gospel has not changed since then post=18836123]Entreri06[/post]

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: Entreri06
The Christian Church existed hundreds of years before Constantine was even born let alone Rome being in any way associated with Christianity.

Yes but at the council of nicea Constantine and his merry band got to decide what Christianity would look like , what it's tenants would be and what would be included and excluded from the bible. At that point in history Christianity wasn't a Jewish religion.. It was a roman religion. And it stayed a roman religion until the protestant revolution centuries later. Non of that is conspiracy, that's history. The conspiracy comes in when talking about what changes were made and Constantine's motivation.

Aka the ROMAN Catholic Church.

a reply to: Entreri06

Do we have any copies of Paul's writings from before the council of nicea? I know Paul being a creation of Rome is a very wide spread theory held by quite a few historians.

Name one historian. Just one. Papyrus 46 is dated between 175-225 AD.

Wiki:

"Papyrus 46 contains most of the Pauline epistles, though with some folios missing. It contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. All of the leaves have lost some lines at the bottom through deterioration."

So yes we have almost a complete manuscript at the minimum a full 100 years before nicea. I didn't look for specific references but I am sure you can find him quoted far earlier than that.

originally posted by: Entreri06
Yes but at the council of nicea Constantine and his merry band got to decide what Christianity would look like , what it's tenants would be and what would be included and excluded from the bible.

Non of that is conspiracy, that's history.

That's not history unless you think Dan Brown is a history professor, that's all crap that was written by him and picked up by Christian hate groups.

History is that the only significant thing that came from the council of Nicaea was dealing with the Aryan Heresy. The minutes of the Council of Nicaea still exits, and what was discussed is still known if you want to bother going to look up the truth. Something tells me that truth is not the ultimate goal in this thread however.

This WIKI article even directly addresses the nonsense you are spewing toward the bottom:
First Council of Nicaea

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Entreri06

This theory holds plausibility knowing what we know about the way governments fabricate information to maintain power.
Paul certainly might have been a fabrication of Rome and if not that at least a charlatan of a high degree.

I have read that the average Roman held little belief in the old gods and that the Empire needed a unifying belief system to help it hold itself together, hence the change from Roman Empire to Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne and all that big change over that some call conversion.

However, my question, the one that leads me to believe otherwise is this. Why did the Romans limit the writing about Jesus to the little book of the Christians and a few scrolls hidden in the desert. Why did they not present other forged documents and spread them all around. Why is it that the only place we can read about Jesus is in the Bible and only there, excepting a brief hint or wisp of possibility in other writings from that time. One would think that the more wide spread the tales, the stronger the meme which certainly would have been what the Roman leaders would have wanted.

This is all about like saying the moon is the size of a quarter in reality because I can put it in the circle made by my index finger and thumb.

Here watch this:

Should address your issues.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Entreri06

Do we have any copies of Paul's writings from before the council of nicea? I know Paul being a creation of Rome is a very wide spread theory held by quite a few historians.

The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible outside of the fictional story of the Di Vinci Code. No knowledgeable historian believes this, unless they have an anti-Christian agenda.

Wiki: Irenaeus- Scripture
Scholars contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament Texts:

Matthew (Book 3, Chapter 16)
Mark (Book 3, Chapter 10)
Luke (Book 3, Chapter 14)
John (Book 3, Chapter 11)
Acts of the Apostles (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Romans (Book 3, Chapter 16)
1 Corinthians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
2 Corinthians (Book 3, Chapter 7)
Galatians (Book 3, Chapter 22)
Ephesians (Book 5, Chapter 2)
Philippians (Book 4, Chapter 18)
Colossians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
1 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 6)
2 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 25)
1 Timothy (Book 1, Preface)
2 Timothy (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Titus (Book 3, Chapter 3)
1 Peter (Book 4, Chapter 9)
1 John (Book 3, Chapter 16)
2 John (Book 1, Chapter 16)
Revelation to John (Book 4, Chapter 20)

He may refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not cite Philemon, 3 John or Jude

This was over a hundred years before the council of Nicaea.

Me asking if we had pre nicean council copies of Paul's books wasn't sarcasm I was legitimately asking. I've heard the Paul being a spy or creation of the roman aristocracy in way more then one documentary that wasn't a blast piece on Christianity. Honestly I guess I assumed that it would have been done at the council of nicea. There isn't any question that there were 200+ separate books of the bible floating around at the time Constantine and his bunch decided what would be canon and what would be discarded.. I know divinci code was fiction...

originally posted by: Entreri06
Me asking if we had pre nicean council copies of Paul's books wasn't sarcasm I was legitimately asking. I've heard the Paul being a spy or creation of the roman aristocracy in way more then one documentary that wasn't a blast piece on Christianity. Honestly I guess I assumed that it would have been done at the council of nicea. There isn't any question that there were 200+ separate books of the bible floating around at the time Constantine and his bunch decided what would be canon and what would be discarded.. I know divinci code was fiction...

Take 9 minutes and watch the video I linked above.
Constantine had NOTHING to do with writing the Bible.

Can someone produce some actual evidence that this crucifixion even HAPPENED outside the bible, let alone all the other nonsense about it?

I mean why does Rome have to change the way the story is told if there isn't even credible evidence that the story happened in the first place? Rome is supposed to be great record keepers. Where are the records of Pilate signing off on Jesus' execution?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06

Do we have any copies of Paul's writings from before the council of nicea? I know Paul being a creation of Rome is a very wide spread theory held by quite a few historians.

Name one historian. Just one. Papyrus 46 is dated between 175-225 AD.

Wiki:

"Papyrus 46 contains most of the Pauline epistles, though with some folios missing. It contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. All of the leaves have lost some lines at the bottom through deterioration."

So yes we have almost a complete manuscript at the minimum a full 100 years before nicea. I didn't look for specific references but I am sure you can find him quoted far earlier than that.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.
There's no record of the Jews in Egypt. So every Egyptologist must be anti Christian and sent by the devil. If your only counting Christian historians as unbiased, you got problems... Call me crazy but I would say the opposite. Only an atheist/ agnostic historian could be considered impartial.

a reply to: Entreri06
The problem is that these aren't neutral non-Christian historians, they are folks with an agenda, such as the one you listed:

He considered the Gospel traditions blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus and especially the legend of Judas Iscariot (which he believed to be a product of the Gentile Pauline Church) as the roots of Christian antisemitism.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Entreri06
Me asking if we had pre nicean council copies of Paul's books wasn't sarcasm I was legitimately asking. I've heard the Paul being a spy or creation of the roman aristocracy in way more then one documentary that wasn't a blast piece on Christianity. Honestly I guess I assumed that it would have been done at the council of nicea. There isn't any question that there were 200+ separate books of the bible floating around at the time Constantine and his bunch decided what would be canon and what would be discarded.. I know divinci code was fiction...

Take 9 minutes and watch the video I linked above.
Constantine had NOTHING to do with writing the Bible.

I definately appreciate your participation in the thread, but no ones going to watch a video when you don't know who produced it or it's content. Is it from the American historical society or the westboro baptist church ? Feel me?

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06

Do we have any copies of Paul's writings from before the council of nicea? I know Paul being a creation of Rome is a very wide spread theory held by quite a few historians.

Name one historian. Just one. Papyrus 46 is dated between 175-225 AD.

Wiki:

"Papyrus 46 contains most of the Pauline epistles, though with some folios missing. It contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. All of the leaves have lost some lines at the bottom through deterioration."

So yes we have almost a complete manuscript at the minimum a full 100 years before nicea. I didn't look for specific references but I am sure you can find him quoted far earlier than that.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.
There's no record of the Jews in Egypt. So every Egyptologist must be anti Christian and sent by the devil. If your only counting Christian historians as unbiased, you got problems... Call me crazy but I would say the opposite. Only an atheist/ agnostic historian could be considered impartial.

So any historian who doesn't buy the biblical account is anti Christian while any that do are neutral?!? So basically every historian that's not a Christian then? No one who believed the bible was a accurate historical account would be any religion besides Christianity... Guess what? Most historians arnt Christian....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Can someone produce some actual evidence that this crucifixion even HAPPENED outside the bible, let alone all the other nonsense about it?

I mean why does Rome have to change the way the story is told if there isn't even credible evidence that the story happened in the first place? Rome is supposed to be great record keepers. Where are the records of Pilate signing off on Jesus' execution?

Because that's the OP lol. I get your point tho. Since we have nothing outside of the bible verifying ANYTHING in the bible, all speculation would be fair game.

originally posted by: Entreri06
I definately appreciate your participation in the thread, but no ones going to watch a video when you don't know who produced it or it's content. Is it from the American historical society or the westboro baptist church ? Feel me?

Yeah...
Translation: "I don't care about learning anything, this is about me slamming Christians with a bunch of false accusations and made up history".

Enjoy the rest of your thread, I'm out...

a reply to: Entreri06

So you want to advocate making an assumption so we can postulate on what Rome may or may not have done given that said assumption is correct? Meaning that if the assumption is incorrect, then the whole conversation is irrelevant? To me, I'd rather determine the event happened first before determining guilt.