[Was Christianity Impossible In The Roman Empire?]

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

[Was Christianity Impossible In The Roman Empire?]

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.

[Was Christianity Impossible In The Roman Empire?]

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.

[Doubting The Gods Of The Roman Empire]

I've been doing some digging around and found the following on the internet:

 

The state religion of the Roman Empire was the worship of the gods of Olympus. And since the reign of the Emperor Augustus (27BC-AD14), the emperor was treated as divine together with the Olympian deities. The worship of the Olympian deities involves simply the sprinkling of a pinch of incense and is done only on formal occasions. It is an act with patriotic rather than religious significance, roughly similar to saluting the flag and singing the national anthem today. The educated citizens of the empire, being educated in the great humanist tradition of Greece, no longer holds any belief in the Olympian gods; they perform the rites merely as a formality to show their allegiance to the emperor and the empire

 

 

Does this also have any truth to it? That the educated citizens were less inclined to beleive in the gods, but rather participated in the rituals as merely tradition?

 

And thanks for that book suggestion; i've found their book Cults of the Roman Empire on Amazon.

[Doubting The Gods Of The Roman Empire]

I know this is a vaugely specific topic, but do you know of any books that were written that deal with this aspect of religious sentiments in the Roman Empire? or any books that may even referrence any trends of doubt and skepticism within the people of those days with regards to their particular beleif system?

[Doubting The Gods Of The Roman Empire]

Hello everyone! I have some questions about the religious atmosphere in ancient Rome. I have been doing some research on the skepticism of the gods in ancient Rome after reading the book The Church in History, written by B.A. Kuiper. The first chapter of the book decribes that Jesus couldn't have come on the scene at a better time, because the religious condition at that time was full of doubt about the Roman gods. The premise is that the people would be more inclined to latch onto this new religion (christianity) if their current beleifs are faltering. Is this true? Here is an excerpt from the book that better articulates all this:

 

"4. Not only did these physical conditions help the cause of the new Christian missionaries, but the spiritual and intellectual climate was also readied for their work. Greece had spread her culture throughout the near east and had "conquered" Rome with her civilization.

 

The Greek Language had become the world language, one that would enable Paul to communicate with all his hearers in that part of the Roman empire where Paul did most of his work. When Paul quoted the OT to the Jews, whom he met on his journeys, his quotations were from the Septuigint, a Greek version of the OT made as early as 200 years before Christ.

 

Greek Philosophy made many people doubt their gods whose strange activities now began to fade into myth and legend. The Roman gods came into disrepute, and many officials of the Empire continued to encourage religion only because such belief served to curtail revolt among the common people. The Roman state religion was clearly a political affair that offered no peace of mind to a disturbed soul. All this left a moral vacuum that boded no good for the world.

 

Under such conditions, the Gospels came with it's promise of peace, pardon from sin, rest for the heavy laden. Here was assurance, forgiveness, life, and salvation in Christ. This was the message that struck home, and the fullness of time made the rapid spread of this Word possible"

 

 

 

I would greatly appreciate any feedback.