Was Christianity Impossible In The Roman Empire?

[Ray Fletcher]

Internet apologist JP Holding has recently composed an essay detailing his contention, that given the cultural conditions in the Roman Empire, christianity should not have survived; but since the resurrection of Jesus christ was a reality, there was a powerful spirit that beckoned many in those days to embrace this new religion.

 

JP lists 17 factors in this essay, addressing why christianity should have failed from it's conception, that to someone who does not know much about the Roman Empire could find his argument plausible. JP overtly challenges any skeptic to refute him, and those that have are ridiculed on his website as he commences to "refute" their refutation.

 

I would like to discuss the merits of his claims in this essay, as he does come across quite often as convincing. And if he is right, it could prove that christianity is true; I doubt that the essay is without holes made by unhistorical claims, but i'm still hesitant to say that.

 

The essay is not too long, but if anyone could take the time to read it, I would like to begin a discussion, addressing one factor at a time.

 

Here is the link to the essay:

 

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

 

Also, some of the refutations of those who argue against this essay are, in my opinion, not making good arguments against it. Those can be found on his website as well if you'd like to check them out.

[haimore]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a Christian...in fact I'm a Catholic Christian. I disagree with the premise entirely because the Mithra cult was running neck and neck with Christianity for a long time to become the dominant religion in Emperial Rome.

[Ray Fletcher]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a Christian...in fact I'm a Catholic Christian. I disagree with the premise entirely because the Mithra cult was running neck and neck with Christianity for a long time to become the dominant religion in Emperial Rome.

Have you read factor #1 of the essay? The mithra cults didn't have the shame aspect of crucifixion to deal with. JP's premise in factor #1 could be repesented by the question "why would anyone accept a crucified saviour?" Why would anyone accept such a story about a god who suffered the most shameful, despicable death, the one that is reverved for the most wretched of persons?

 

No other saviour/god underwent such shame as Jesus depicted by the New Testament. And in spite of the collective sentiments of nobility and honor throughout the Roman Empire, the story of a god who was degraded by crucifixion should have been immediately snuffed out; instead, it grew to dominate the world.

[Ursus]

I'm afraid I really and truly have to disagree. There were a variety of cults throughout the Roman empire that shared certain characteristics with Christianity. Among some of those characteristics were dying and rising gods. Osiris was chopped into pieces by his brother Set and scattered across Egypt. Dionysus was ripped to shreds as an infant and the pieces eaten for lunch. A lot of gods have suffered quite terribly to conquer death. The popularity of these cults probably helped pave the way for Christianity in the first place.

 

There is a certain logical fallacy in saying that your religion is REAL because the deities and mythologies behind it are REAL. Any religion can make that claim. The vast majority of religions do make that claim. I'm not about to argue whether or not Christianity is real, but I think it's rather ridiculous to "prove" it's real based on its success in the former Roman Empire. Is Islam REAL because it's the fastest growing religion on earth?

[haimore]

What the Bear Guy said.

[Ray Fletcher]

I'm afraid I really and truly have to disagree.

[Ursus]

The attitude that Roman conservatives displayed toward Christianity is little different than their attitude to a wide variety of counter-culture cults they attempted to restrict. It was not terribly difficult for the Roman establishment to view something as shameful or disgraceful. Hellenic culture, when it first penetrated heavily into Rome, was considered such.

 

I also never assumed you yourself were Christian.

 

I think the whole argument rests on flimsy assumptions and logical fallacies. If you feel differently I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think there are a lot of reasons Christianity trumped paganism, but not the one presented here. *shrugs*

[Zeke]

that given the cultural conditions in the Roman Empire, christianity should not have survived; but since the resurrection of Jesus christ was a reality, there was a powerful spirit that beckoned many in those days to embrace this new religion.

 

No one prooved it was a relity at all.....a powerful spirit....sure there was a powerful spirit there I don't doubt that but I don't think it converted people alone it was the cunning of the church and the methods of converstion it used as well as its message.

 

And you know whats funny...after they embraced that spirit.....and took down the altar of victory and doust the fire of Vesta in the Senate house in Rome, never to be rekindled again.....Goths under Alaric sakced the city for the first time since the Celts in 390 B.C. thats no coincendece. The Romans abodandoned their old gods and they were punished servearly.

 

I think that if a guy like this can go about writing his own essay about a magical spirit converting everyone then I should write my own essay of the reaons the Gods abandon Rome to their "New Faith."

 

Not to be offensive but it makes me angry,

 

Sorry about spelling

Zeke

[Ro-man]

I am definatly not the person to be knowledgeable with this topic at ALL, but the romans were afraid to let christianity spread. because of the fact that they(the christians) told people to worship god, instead of the emporer of rome at the time. The romans saw this as a discrase, so they persectuted them. I have know intent in saying...which religion is correct, persay, but you have..

Religion--&--History, which are 2 totally different things.

(it never works in the telephone game of passing the same statement around, so im sure not EVERY single word is true of anything)

[Ro-man]

when the two (Religion--&--History) cross paths, people interperet things in totally different ways. its what you believe, but it doesnt mean that its correct.

and

Islam is simply doing the same thing as christianity...making a name for themselves. they dont preach "this is the only correct religion", they preach that everybody has oppinions, and morals. christianity is about 33% of the world, and it all started with the bold statement to the Romans.

[Jimbow]

Could targeting the Emperor for conversion to Christianity have had anything to do with it? Courts have even changed their national language when a king has made a spelling mistake. If an Emperor were to become christian, it's not unfeasible that the most influential people of the Empire would also further the cause, and given they influenced and made legislation, well..... If I were correct, the real question is did Christianity succeed through faith, or sycophancy?

[DanM]

You might want to read Peter Brown's "Poverty and Leadership in the later Roman Empire" to get another view of why the Christian church was able to gain some traction. There are a lot of theories on why the Christian church gained ground at this time. Its just that the issue of how they treated the poor has always been one that caught my eye. At least as a significant reason for the success of the church if not the whole answer.

 

Before Christianity, the Roman aristocracy defined their sense of otherness or superiority more through the moral code of the day and public service. The sense of civic duty did a lot to garner the sort of prestige that these guys craved. The early Christian Church, however, threw this standard on its ear. Instead of service to your city as a way of demonstrating virtue, it became a matter of how you treated the poor. Also, Christianity did a lot to Democratize the moral thinking of stocism and neo-platonism and I believe part of the reason the establishment resisted it early on was its influence in breaking down morality as a line of seperation between the aristocrats and the masses.

 

To support the theory on giving to the poor, look at how Julian the Apostate attempted to counter Christianity. One of the big things he did was to give a lot of Imperial cash to the Pagan temples so they could set up charitable works for the poor like the Christians and Jews did it. He knew that their charitable works were winning converts and he sought to counter their success and possibly even use the tactic to advance the cause of paganism.

 

Of course there were a lot of other issues such as the effectiveness of their organization, etc. I don't mean to oversimplify the issue. I just wanted to point out this one factor in why Christianity may have gained the upper hand.