There is no contemporary - or even within roughly 2 decades of his life - evidence of a historical Jesus. That's just a simple fact.

FWIW I have no doubt there was a 'Jesus' - as in, the origin of the stories and the Christian faith. My doubts are entirely about the accuracy of the NT, and there is no evidence within 100 years of his life to reconstruct that from.

But by saying, to quote you, "nearly all of the NT can be reconstructed by the writings of the early church fathers". If by "early" you are talking about people that lived a century or more after the life of Jesus writting about events they've read from sources we've already demonstrated to be 3rd/4th hand (at best) and put to paper decades (at best) after the event, then why are they proof of anything? This is the same as your statement re: God not allowing man to mince his words (to paraphrase), and the same logic could be used to demonstrate that Scientology with it's thetans and B-grade sci-fi origins is also authentic.

Fair enough, thanks!

I guess the point I want to make is that you are not basing your Christian belief on historical evidence, you are basing it off the faith that what is in the NT is correct, without being able to correlate the events told within to other contemporary or near-contemporary evidence. It's a matter of faith.

Let me take a step back and ask you some questions so that I might understand clearly what you are stating.

Are you saying that Matthew (who was literate being a tax collector), who was called by Jesus and followed him through most of His ministry could not have accurately written his gospel (with his emphasis on Christ's Kingship) because he wrote it 20 years after the fact? Or Mark, not being a disciple but was good friends with Peter, could not have written his gospel? Or Luke, a physician and highly literate, because he did not explicitly state that he wrote his two books? Or if they did write the gospels, you cannot accept them only because we do not have their original manuscript in full? Or perhaps over a 30-40 year period, they colluded on the events and made it up? Or perhaps someone or a small group else took the gospels and Paul's letters and sometime before copies were made (the early manuscripts and fragments we do have), and rewrote all of them to be in harmony and tell the same story?

What is your evidence that any of the above took place?

If what they wrote were made up by someone else or what they wrote was not factual, why would most all of them (the disciples, Paul and Paul's and Peter's disciples), spend their remaining lives consistently preaching and teaching the gospel...and be killed for it?

I would argue that by oversimplifying the case, you do it an injustice.

Everything any of us believe, we take as a matter of faith, believing that some evidence we've encountered is sufficient to convince us. It's not as though faith and logic are mortal enemies - they must work hand in hand, or neither works at all.

For example, we all believe the earth revolves around the sun. Why? Because we've seen enough evidence and heard enough testimony from trusted sources to believe it. None of us, of course, have actually witnessed this from space (I assume). But we've encountered enough evidence to put our faith in it.

That's an easy thing to put faith in. Not much of a "leap." The evidence is overwhelming, empirical and testable.

Now, most of us also believe Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. But on what evidence? Artwork, archeology, historical writings and stories. The evidence is even less observable, not empirical, requires even more of a leap from evidence to faith, but still sufficient most of us believe in the legend of a French heroine burned for alleged heresy.

A little tougher, but still fairly certain. Yet how about this one:

Most of us believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.F.K ... maybe ... well, even tougher. Or believe John Hinkley Jr. was really the one who took a shot at Reagan and not a patsy. If you really believe he did or didn't, you've been looking at a certain amount of evidence and testimony, and at some point, that evidence was sufficient you put your faith in that story. And if you aren't convinced one way or the other, all you're saying is that the evidence is not sufficient to secure your faith.

Or, do you believe Obama won the 2008 election? Of course you do. Yet you didn't count the ballots. You believe the testimony of others. You put your faith in the various officials, though you didn't see the evidence with your own eyes.

Now, to historical events even older. There IS contemporary or near-contemporary evidence of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Just as in Joan of Arc's case, we have artwork, archeology, historical writings and stories, some from those who lived at the same time as Jesus and his closest companions (I would point to Paul, Luke and those repeatedly mentioned and quoted in their works.).

I do find it somewhat suspect - and have pointed out - that many are willing to accept even less evidence for other ancient events, while resolutely dismissing the evidence for Christ, simply because it was later collated into "the Bible." It smacks of a double standard and an anti-religious bias.

If those same writings and historical evidences were never collected into the Bible, were not the foundation of a world faith, did not point to the deity of Christ or contain claims of the supernatural, but simply were stories about a historical figure named Jesus, we would all believe them as readily as we believe stories about Alexander the Great or Leif Ericson. We'd even believe he actually said certain things and presented certain teachings as readily as we believe Julius Caesar said, "Veni, vidi, vici." (while in fact the evidence for Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM" and "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me" dwarfs the evidence Caesar ever said, "I came, I saw, I conquered.")

To be fair, however, I do recognize the claims of Jesus are far more significant to us than the claims of Egyptian history, or Ericson's explorations, or even Joan of Arc or JFK's assassination.

I understand you want even more evidence before accepting the faith to believe. I get it.

All I can really say to that is to testify that I have seen enough to believe. It's not merely some cultural influence in my case (I abandoned the religion of my youth upon further research), not some blind leap of faith upon some moment of religious fervor, but the natural conclusion of believing that for which I have seen evidence. Yes, it's still faith. I would never say Christianity is not a faith.

But it is not a faith that stands in antithesis to reason or evidence. It is a faith that stands upon the evidence.

+1

I don't believe thats a credible argument - on one hand you're indicating believable actions which are attributed to normal humans.

On the other hand you're arguing that because of a historical document (the bible) saying it happened we should believe in occurrences which are beyond normal science (resurrections, miracles etc.).

This is even harder to accept when its obvious that such things remain impossible today even to those within the churches which state they will occur for their believers.

Even devout believers such as yourself seem to struggle with the confliction between reality and religion - for an example of this if an amputee asked you to pray that God would heal him and return his arm to him would you pray and if so would you really expect his arm returned to him? ....

I've seen many churches where leaders stand and say things like "I feel there is somone here with a bad back, Jesus has told me it'll be healed" ... yet I've never seen one say "You at the back with the missing leg, tomorrow morning it'll be back" ;)

Welcome to human nature V1.0.

I don't think this is true at all. Well, it may be true for a large amount of uneducated folk, who believe whatever they've heard most often or seen on TV. But those people are just as likely to believe that Benjamin Franklin said, "Veni, vidi, vici."

However, among educated folk I don't think it's at all true to say that they would take something like the Bible as historical fact if it only wasn't religious. There are many, many, many historical texts that are written as fact and that we take with a grain of salt. The entire subject of history is the process of looking at historical documents and learning how to decipher what is true, what is not. There's not a single historical document that is assumed to be 100% fact. The entire field is about learning how to look beyond the author's biases and misunderstanding, how to translate correctly, how to account for the beliefs at the time it was written.

The fact is that history is looked at with very discerning eyes. And if someone says, "Caesar said veni, vidi, vici," someone else will say, "Wait, is that true? What's the evidence." The fact that many human beings will quote things without being sure it's true doesn't mean that we take these things on faith. It means many human beings don't really pay attention or think about things. And when they do they invent science and history and empiricism and rationalism and figure out what is more likely to actually be true.

I can't follow you this far. I understand your point that we extend faith in anything we choose to believe is true. But in addition we extend larger or smaller demands for accuracy according to either how important or how believable we find something. And the fact is that Christians are asking us to extend a lower standard of evidence for the facts behind the Christian religion than we extend to similar things.

There are many, many historical claims to divinity, and many are recorded in historical documents and have eyewitness accounts. Until 1945 the Japanese Emperor claimed to be divine. We have all the historical evidence we need to confirm that. Yet, we don't believe it. Why not? Because we demand greater evidence for such an outlandish claim. It is true we tacitly accept what historians tell us about many things. But when the thing matters greatly to us, we demand more. When Holocaust deniers come out, we turn back to the evidence and demand the proof, and they provide it. That is the foundation of rational thought, that we always can return to the evidence and demand that it continues to support our theories.

Christianity stands upon *some* evidence. But the truth is that Christianity makes a very spectacular claim, but then does not want to be held up to the amount of scrutiny that spectacular claims are put under in history or science. There is a general consensus in history about many events, and some degree of dissent. If there was as much of a consent around the religious events of the Bible as there was around the signing of the Magna Carta, I'd believe it. But in fact there is only as much evidence about the supernatural nature of Jesus as there is about a million other claims made by historical figures that we can find no real evidence for, only hearsay.

+1

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At least for me.

Furthermore, even today, historians and other types regularly try and re-create events that are described in historical texts, testing their feasibility. Naval exploration, military battles, feats of engineering, there are a myriad of examples of modern day people testing these possibilities.

Miracles / acts of divinity are very nearly impossible to re-create, thus their credibility are called into question far more. You can, using a fairly credible replica, build a Viking-era longboat and test its ability against what history has written down. You can't do that with the vast majority of extraordinary events the Bible claims.

Thus, historical events are far, far more credible in many cases, and can be shot down (or at least called into serious doubt) just as easily.

Ah, ok. I agree with that then. I understand inadvertently making sloppy posts - I tend to make them myself far too much ;).

This.

N.T. Wright, a New Testament theologian (who has written some fantastic books, btw - probably my favorite theologian of the late 20th, early 21st century), has stated that the stunning spread of Christianity must have meant that something extraordinary happened. And that people would not have had such zeal to spread this faith unless they witnessed something absolutely amazing (he uses it to argue for the physical resurrection of Jesus - that it was so overwhelmingly incredible, it created an amazing religious zeal to spread this message, which somehow ended up spreading like wildfire contrary to what would be expected when discussing a Jewish Messiah who didn't actually do the things most Jews expected the Messiah to do).

I think you are confusing his argument (and Bucc's before that). I believe that this is in reference to people claiming that a historical rabbi named Yeshua, who is now called Jesus (due to the NT being written in Greek), didn't actually exist at all - or that there is no proof he did.

I'm enjoying this thread.

Surely that would be true for most other religions as well though that have spread rather quickly?

IMO, ya, but that's only a small handful of religions. To me that speaks to all of them being worthwhile and "true" in at least some spiritual sense.

Well that depends on how they were spread, right? ;) One spread through conquest isn't necessarily as impressive as spread by missionary zeal (resulting in martyrdom - I mean why be so eager to run around telling people about this Messiah when like 9 or 10 of the original disciples, not counting Judas, got themselves executed). That's kind of the amazing thing about the spread of Christianity - it was done in the absence of state approval, until 300 years later.

And also what molson said right above. I'm not one of those Christians, mind, who thinks there is no truth in any of the world's other faiths. I think all that is true comes from God regardless of who espouses it (as Paul wrote in one of his letters, but I'm blanking on where).

And that's the exact sort of claim that in historical or scientific studies is then followed up with study. It's an interesting observation, now let's see further evidence behind it. If someone says, "This must have happened, because of this and this," in other fields of history, historians then say, "Well, maybe. Let's check." That's not anything that passes for 'proof' in any other field of history.

In other words, "I can't think of any other reason this would have happened," is not considered evidence. A conjecture is just as likely to be wrong as right, and requires further investigation.

ISiddiqui really trying to for that comeback player of the year deal.

Belief in Christ and His claims does require faith as shown through God's Words. If the evidence, of which much exist, was simply a matter of scientific facts, then it would not have the transforming power in people's lives - it would be taken for granted.

It is God that opens up the hearts and minds to accept His Words, to accept our condemned condition of sin and to have faith to believe that Christ has redeemed us through Him.

Faith has to be something extraordinary because it will transform believers to produce the fruit of the Spirit - from the inside out (as oppose to just a self-righteous charade which Jesus said of the Pharisees). Many intellectuals (and otherwise) throughout history (2000 years) have spoken and written about the theology and textual criticism of the scriptures, as well as the lessons from scriptures for daily living and spreading the gospel to others. But in all cases - rich or poor, intellectual or not, young or old, high born or low born - it begins with the personal acceptance that we need repentance and that only through belief and faith on Christ can we be saved and to follow Him.

He's playing it way too conservatively, he's gotta take some chances if he really wants to get back in the hunt.

Nearly all religions though have spread through 'missionary zeal' combined with conquest.

The "Cruasades" for instance helped a lot with the spreading of the Christian message.

(even Buddhists who are traditionally thought of as peaceful were frequently involved in conflicts in the past)

Cool - I'm personally willing to accept the existence of a person named Jesus who have had a huge influence on history ... and for that reason I've been constantly intrigued by him, however I have found no credence for miracles (and particularly his 'resurrection') personally.

I put down such reports in a similar manner to how Elvis was continually spotted by his fans after his demise - wishful thinking combined with people of similar appearance.

Elvis Sightings - Wikipedia

There is where I think there is crossover with politics. I do not know many people who have empirically pondered the American system. For most Americans notions of liberty, democracy and capitalism are accepted without question (on faith).

Not enough time has passed to declare the American experiment successful. Despite concrete evidence, people are able live in a way that is stable, validating and meaningful. As a result, the American system and correlated religious beliefs are given credit for creating the good life/self.

Wow, so Joseph Smith must have really seen those golden tabulates... who knew?

I ain't on the field enough for MVP - gotta get some hardware ;).

I'm talking about the first 300 years of Christianity. For the first 100 years, it was considered improper for a Christian to be a member of the military at all (strictly pacifist) and willing martyrdom was celebrated. When Constantine "legalized" Christianity things became a slight bit different. But the massive spread of Christianity until the Edict of Milan was breathtaking in its speed and lack of violent conversion.

I agree that during the early years of Christianity it wasn't associated with violence - however I'm sure the same could be indicated of may religions in the world, some of which are undoubtably now defunct.

Hinduism for instance is a very peaceful religion - which is one of the reasons I believe its been successful (ie. people yearn for predictability and safety).

In case you're interested theres a small potted history of Hinduism here - Hinduism History

The interesting thing about Hinduism is its very amorphous nature. It has encompassed a wide variety of local deity beliefs (and hence why it has no real creeds). It is definitely something that can be learned from.

As did Christianity.

Christianity had at its core that God became man, came to Earth, taught us how to live as God's people, and sacrificed himself to free us from sin, death, and the devil. There was also a definitive call to community. There was a definitive orthodoxy and creeds and not just a way of life.

And thus, a condition applying to everyone regardless of culture, nationality, race, gender or caste.

I think you do have to account for Mormonism if that is your theory. The spread from one to the current number of believers and global scope is pretty remarkable.

There are aspects of Mormonism that are very interesting. I think people are naturally drawn to those who are so full of grace and kindness (most people detail their interactions with Mormons to be incredibly positive - well, except blacks before the 1970s and homosexuals today).

The question also becomes how different is Mormonism from the Christian faith. Mormons claim they are Christians. Orthodox Christians claim they aren't (Mormons aren't Trinitarians), though Mormons do assert that they follow Jesus Christ and affirm His divinity (though their Godhead is Three and not Three-in-One).

Though Mormons are still a very very small percentage of the population. 6.1 million Mormons in the US as of 2010, which is like 2% of the United States. And apparently 13,824,854 worldwide members in October 2010. That's not very much at all.

Yep, that is not a convincing argument re: Christianity. And there are religions even more modern than Mormonism that demonstrate this.

Yeah, if we judge the validity of a belief by how many people come to believe it how quickly, we're going to have a long list of things that "must be true" that clearly are not.

The general acceptance that "God became man" came hundreds of years after Jesus. Given that, you can argue that it is even more remarkable that the religion was able to survive which contained a Gnostic (never man, only divine) and orthodox theology at the same time.

This was a hot topic when I was in grad school, particularity after Raymond Brown spoke to us. He argued that it was the Christian leaders use of cultural specific rhetoric that was central to their rise and popularity.

Well it speaks some truth to me, especially since it went against what was valued at the time (ie, Christ's submitting to death as opposed to heroically killing His enemies). If it doesn't to you, then it doesn't.

No, 'Matthew the tax collector' may well have been literate, but the true authorship of the 'Gospel of Matthew' is unknown. It was assigned to him a century or more later:

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Gospel is not unique here, because:


Also assigned to Mark much later. Dated around 70 AD, putting it 40 or so years after the life of Christ.


Once again: Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ignoring the fact that I don't think they did write them, yes, for me to believe the wonderous things written in the NT, at the very least I'd want primary sources.


Sure, but it was more likely 30-40 years of Chinese whispers combined with a good deal of exaggeration.


Sure, possible.


I'm not sure why it's on me to provide any evidence re: the points you mention? I'm not arguing that any of them are true - they may be, they may not be. The questions re: authorship are certainly true, and there is a wealth of material on that. What I am arguing is simply that there is no contemporary historical evidence to back up the wonderous claims in the NT.


How do we know they were? Because of the same non-contemporary evidence that was penned much later?

In the late 1st century, John wrote that the Word become flesh and dwelt among us. And the other gospels and the letters recorded Jesus claims to His divinity and that was the message that was spread, not hundreds of years later.

OK, but I would disagree with you. :D


If we use the word 'faith' to mean 'trust' then sure. I trust that medication I take will work, without knowing how or why. Faith and logic may not be mortal enemies, but there comes a time when if what you're seeing logically disagrees with what you have trusted in faith, then you dig deeper. The problem with religion is that you can't do that. You hit a wall where you are unable to dig any deeper.

Then all these questions start arising: who wrote these gospels, when were they written, where is the contemporary evidence for these fantastic claims of the NT? Why is this religion the correct one when these exact same problems exist for all of them?


Yes, but again, I can dig deeper and find many correlating pieces of data that prove this.


We have many, many primary sources for Joan of Arc's life, including the court papers of her trial and her investigation. Ironically, Joan of Arc is one of the best documented figures from the 15th century which, considering she was a peasant, is pretty remarkable.

There is no leap of faith needed to believe she existed, because the kind of evidence that we don't have for the events of the NT are abundant in this case - primary, contemporary records. And, more to the point, Joan of Arc did not bring the dead back to life or perform any wonderous miracles that would cause us to suspend belief.


No, I don't put faith in any story. I have no idea who shot J.F.K. I don't believe we will ever know unless there is some great discovery at a later date. Maybe it was Oswal, maybe it wasn't. I don't feel the need to lock in any answer right now given the information we have.


I certainly don't put faith in government, I can tell you that much. :D

Maybe it was rigged. I dont know. I trust that it's not, but again, it's not like I've locked this answer in. If evidence arose later that it was rigged, I would easily believe it.


Again, Joan of Arc is a poor example on your part given the wealth of primary sources on her life. As mentioned earlier, the gospels were not written by their named authors, as these authors were assigned much later, and none were written within at least the first few decades of Jesus' death.


Again, not true. If we have one non-contemporary report about a historical event, this is not taken as proof that it definitely did happen. An entry from a diary of a Roman soldier quoting a now-lost 200-year old report about a battle is not proof that that battle took place. If there is no other evidence that it did, the best a historian can say is that maybe it did.

If that same diary stated that Ceasar performed a miracle on the battlefield and did grew wings or something, well... you are naturally going to be far less inclined to believe that such a thing took place than you would an ordinairy Roman battle.


I absolutely 100% disagree with this for all the reason stated above.


I think 'supernatural' would be a better word than 'significant'.


I'm sorry, but it does. The things that Jesus does in the NT are antithesis to reason - miracles. And a lack of evidence (in this case, any primary sources within decades of the events) can itself be taken as evidence, especially given the enormity of the events we are talking about here.

What Bucc said. In Scripture, Jesus seems to assert his divinity in more than a few places. Gnosticism didn't really go anywhere and Arianism arose in the late 3rd Century.

I would also indicate that even using "cultural specific rhetoric", you still have a God who was killed by his enemies and when he came back, he didn't take vengeance, but just taught love even for one's enemies and humility. These views were utterly alien in the Roman world and would have been seen as weakness (and in the Jewish world, the fact Jesus was killed would have been seen as proof that he wasn't the Messiah, a la Judas Maccabeus). That would not have been anywhere near an easy sell.

Doesn't this sound like a possible reason why Christianity was adopted by the Romans though? Forgive those who killed you. When you're building an empire made of conquered peoples, that's not an easy sell, sure, but it would be a useful one.

Groundhog making the strong play for 6th man of the year. Clutch performances down the stretch.

What are you kidding me? Roman culture in particular frowned upon any form of weakness or forgiveness. Might made right and the pursuit of glory was the ultimate goal. It was the complete antithesis of Roman worldview. IIRC, Jesus was the first person who taught that humility towards equals (or lessers) was a virtue (at the very least in the West).

Eastern Empire circa 300-400 AD wasn't in much of a position to conquer anyone. Stability was far more a pressing concern.

I know, and couldn't agree more. I still go to church because I find it comforting, and Christians make up the majority of the best people I know. But sometimes I find myself rolling my eyes during the sermons, or even suppressing a snicker. Then I feel like a lowly hypocrite. Shrug - never claimed to be perfect; God knows that all too well. ;)

It is no longer Roman times but I am still amazed and astounded by the message of Jesus. I don't believe in his divinity but still think him utterly worth our thought and attention two thousand years later. In other words I think the power of his message is enough to explain the spread of his religion, it is no proof of his miracles. In fact I wish people would stop worrying about whether his story is true and just pay attention to whether his message was right. I think it is a shame people spend so much time arguing about salvation while ignoring how he said we should live.

This is what I always think about it. Even if its wrong in the end if people believed it our world would be a heck of a lot better place. If nothing else, it's something to keep us all in line.

You are painting Romans as 2D caricatures of their warrior caste. The vast majority of "Romans" (in actuality, if not name) were peasants. No matter what I think of the spiritual truth behind Christianity, there is no question as to the impact its message had on the lower classes.

IMO it was the perfect religion for the Romans because it suited the peasants - no matter what your lot in life, and generally it was not good, you will be rewarded in the next life if you are a good Christian. Don't punish others, do onto them as they would onto you, etc. For these exact same reasons, it suited the rulers as well.

Although I don't believe the Romans sat there with a graph and mapped out pros and cons before deciding which religion best served their purposes. There were a lot of reasons why the Roman elite adopted Christianity and I'm sure in no small part it was due to its popularity amongst the lower classes.

With the scarcity of historical sources re: early Christianity immediately after Jesus, the effects it can have on a downtrodden peasant class in later times is easy enough to see; Japan in the 16th century. Once Europeans reached Japan for the first time (excluding a possible shipwreck a century before) their monks and holy men weren't far behind. Christianity exploded in Japan, who at this time was in the middle of a 100+ year civil war. If not for a brutal crackdown in the early 17th Century, it's may well have become the major religion of Japan.

This is true, but essentially you were still looking at an Empire of conquered (or, at least, brought into the fold) peoples all under the Eagle. Stability was the #1 reason for the switch to Christianity IMO.

Cart before the horse there. The Greek Celsus argued in 177 that because Christ allowed himself to be killed by his enemies he was unworthy of being called divine. Resurrection thing did not matter.

Other thoughts/slams from Celsus in 177 ce:
1. Jesus was born of a roman solider and went to Egypt to lean some magic spells
2. Book of Matthew is vile. It is filled with inconstancy and absurdities.
3. Celsus asks, why should the OT prophesies refer to Jesus only, when it could be applied to a thousand others?
4. Celsus calls the Gospels: missionary literature- propaganda and proclamation.
5. Celsus says, "the (Gospel) writings only contain facts about Jesus that a puts flattering face on the events of his life."
6. He goes on to say, "I heard that some of your interpreters alter the original text three, four and several more times to be able to deny the inconsistencies." (177ce remember)
7. On the resurrection he says Christians themselves seem unaware "that multitudes have invented similar tales to lead simpleminded hearers astray...Zamolxis, Pythagoras, Herakles."
8. He claimed Jesus was a Dodger fan ;)

:D

I have to say though, I enjoy having civil discussions on religion with Christians a lot more than I like reading the drek you see from the Dawkins/Hitchens school of Atheists all over the internet trolling Christians. It makes me just shake my head... Atheism has become a like a big circle-jerking bully club.

Considering Jesus's message was anti-Roman/empire, I'm not sure the Roman elite would adopt it simply because some peasants did. The parable of turning the other cheek and carry the pack an extra mile are anti-empire parables (see Walter Wink's "The Powers That Be" - turning the other cheek meant the other person had to slap you with the front of his hand marking you as their equal & Roman soldiers could only compel a person to carry a pack 1 mile, so if you carry it an extra mile, you could make the soldier freak out). Also the claims that Jesus is Lord means that Caesar is not (done deliberately).

I'm sure the Roman elite wouldn't like their peasants engaging in subversive religions. That is also why Christians started getting thrown to the lions (not like the peasants rooted for the Christians in the arena).

Stability also was why Christians were almost wiped out under Diocletian (hence why the Edict of Milan was so important).

In theory, yes. His message was also extremely anti-Catholic. Praying in your closet is about the furthest thing from the pomp and ritual of a Catholic ceremony, and the Pope, for all intents and purposes, is worshiped as the embodiment of God by Catholics.


Again, yes, In theory this is true. But what did Constantine do as soon he converted? Showered the clergy with gifts and favours, erected churches/monuments. etc. The clergy were the mouthpiece of Christianity and had the sole power to sway the peasants one way or the other.

It was only the clergy who had access to the Christian texts, and they were one of the few able to read them anyway. If the clergy were onboard, so were their parish, and that was what made his conversion a stroke of genius. For his reign, at least...

That's not exactly what that statement means. After all, Jesus prayed publicly at synagogue. Praying in your closet rather than on the street corner means don't pray so others can see how amazingly you are praying. Its about not play acting (which is what hypocrite meant in Greek).


You have a strange view on the Roman peasants at the time. It wasn't like all the peasants were Christian while the elites were pagan - after all, as stated the crowds at the Colosseum cheered for Christians to die and they weren't made up entirely by the elite of Rom. Constantine's reign was completely safe. He didn't need to make a deathbed confession (recall he didn't actually become Christian until he was about to die). Also when Constantine issued the edict of toleration, Christianity was in trouble. Diocletian had engaged on a program of killing Christians for a decade. And most persecution of Christians in the Roman era was due to the peasants being wary of the new religion and charges of incest and atheism (didn't believe in the state religion). There was plenty of mob violence.

The Pope is not worshipped by Catholics, no more than President Obama is worshipped by Americans. Also, as a Catholic, I would say our masses do not have all that much pomp to them. They are pretty boring. If you want pomp, Benedictions and High Masses are where it is at.

Again, the Empire during Jesus's life was VASTLY different than the Empire when it begun converting to Christianity. 1st Century AD, Rome was at its height. It had the economic and social power to stomp on threats against it, and Christianity was small potatoes.

Fast forward 300 years, the Empire was fractured, perpetually broke, barbarians were on the move, and Christianity had spread to the lower classes. Placating the mob with religion tas a stabilizing / political action makes perfect sense.

Free the Fox from the Box!

Yeah, what the hell was he boxed for anyway?

This completely, once again, ignores that Christianity was viciously persecuted. Diocletian went to town on it. Christians were getting killed by gladiators and by the lions (and who do you think the gladiator fights were for? Not the rich and privileged). How does that even gel with the adopting it as a stabilizing action? And, of course, Christianity was considered an illegal religion until Constantine allowed for its worship.

In addition, the rulers were likely listening to popular approval when they engaged in persecution of Christians:

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why would you want to change the state to a religion which popular animus was against?