Some think the Gospels were political creations of Rome

[firedragon]

One of the biggest evidences that this theory of some of the Mythicists is wrong is the fact that the census of Quirinius did not take place as placed in the Gospel of Luke, and Rome would not make such a blunder because it would be detrimental to their what ever strategy, if they are to write this gospel on purpose.

The second chapter of Luke speaks of the census of Quirinius in order to place Jesus and his birth in Bethlehem as "long time ago in Bethlehem", the beautiful carol sings out. Now as per Luke, as anyone would already know this is the birth of Jesus, and it was the rule of Herod the so called child killer. This guy according to Roman history lived around 3 BC. And the census actually took place 9 years after Herod. in 6 AD.

"A census directed by the Syrian legate P. Sulpicius Quirinius marked the new order in A.D. 6" - The Cambridge Ancient History

This is a huge blunder in terms of history.

Some Mythicists have made the claim that Jesus was a Flavian invention, and that the canonical gospels, being written in Greek, not Aramaic, and by educated writers etc etc has all the flavours of a complete creation of Rome. But, think about it. If Rome created the Gospel of Luke, knowing their own history, would they make such a stupendous blunder? If educated writers, paid by the Roman Empire are creating fiction and calling it gospel accounts, will not they do a better job at trying to make it more authentic by getting their own facts right?

Do any Mythicists who have this idea of a roman conspiracy have any counter theory?

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe nothing to do with Rome but a cock up by those who compiled the bible some 380 years later. Things get list in the mists of time


Side note talking od Herod, did you know his third wife was called Doris

 

[PureX]

There are many gospels not included in the New Testament.

 

[firedragon]

There are many gospels not included in the New Testament.

True.

 

[sun rise]

It might just be my ignorance, but this is the first time I've heard of an error in the Bible being used to disprove a theory about its creation albeit a non-Christian theory.

 

[Augustus]

There are many gospels not included in the New Testament.

Although the general scholarly consensus is that the ones which became canonical are the earliest ones, and the non-canonical date to (much) later.

It's not like a bunch of 4th C dudes just made whatever they liked 'canonical'. The fact that there are inconsistencies in the canonical texts shows they were long established in the tradition before the NT became more or less fixed.

 

[PureX]

Although the general scholarly consensus is that the ones which became canonical are the earliest ones, and the non-canonical date to (much) later.

It's not like a bunch of 4th C dudes just made whatever they liked 'canonical'. The fact that there are inconsistencies in the canonical texts shows they were long established in the tradition before the NT became more or less fixed.

What's important to understand, I think, is that it's ALL interpretation. Christianity is an interpretation of some mythologized events. Personal, collective, religious, cultural, political, and so on. In the ends we each have to determine for ourselves what the stories are, and what they mean.

 

[stvdv]

New One of the biggest evidences that this theory of some of the Mythicists is wrong is the fact that the census of Quirinius did not take place as placed in the Gospel of Luke, and Rome would not make such a blunder because it would be detrimental to their what ever strategy, if they are to write this gospel on purpose.

Mythicists argue that the accounts of Jesus are to a large extent, or completely, of a mythical nature, questioning the mainstream paradigm of a historical Jesus in the beginning of the 1st century who was deified.

Even easier proof would be: they start their own Religion, meaning their faith, meaning their opinion, not fact; hence no proof at all. Just a new Religion called Mythicists

 

[1213]

One of the biggest evidences that this theory of some of the Mythicists is wrong is the fact that the census of Quirinius did not take place as placed in the Gospel of Luke, and Rome would not make such a blunder because it would be detrimental to their what ever strategy, if they are to write this gospel on purpose.

The second chapter of Luke speaks of the census of Quirinius in order to place Jesus and his birth in Bethlehem as "long time ago in Bethlehem", the beautiful carol sings out. Now as per Luke, as anyone would already know this is the birth of Jesus, and it was the rule of Herod the so called child killer. ...

Would Rome portray him as a child killer? I don’t think so. Also, the whole Bible is in my opinion not good for Rome, which is why I don’t think it is Roman. If they would have made it, they would not have added things that are harmful for them.

I believe Luke is correct about what it says.

 

[firedragon]

Would Rome portray him as a child killer?

If you are talking about the Tanakh, it probably already existed. Thus, they dont have a choice in case they were inventing a religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some Mythicists have made the claim that Jesus was a Flavian invention, and ...

... some people believe in alien abduction while others are convinced that vaccines are a government plot.

Meanwhile, Bart Ehrman notes:

Atwill is a different breed from most mythicists. That’s probably good and bad. Good because, well, you wouldn’t like to be like the others. Bad because, well, you really shouldn’t want to be one at all. In any event, here is Mr. Atwill’s case in a nutshell, as described in this earth-shattering press release (referenced above):

“Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. “Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century,” he explains. “When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That’s when the ‘peaceful’ Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to ‘give onto Caesar’ and pay their taxes to Rome.”​

The operative word in this description is the second one: “asserts.” I know sophomores in college who could rip this assertion to shreds. For now, let me just put out some talking points, in hopes that I don’t have to talk about them at any length. [ source ]​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are many gospels not included in the New Testament.

Could you share with us your definition of "gospel"?

 

[firedragon]

Could you share with us your definition of "gospel"?

Gospel according to Mark. Lets say it is written "Kata Markon" in old manuscripts, so what does that mean and whats the definition?

 

[firedragon]

Maybe nothing to do with Rome but a cock up by those who compiled the bible some 380 years later. Things get list in the mists of time

You think the Gospels were concocted in the 4th century?

Side note talking od Herod, did you know his third wife was called Doris

Never heard that. All I know is that she is the first.