No.

They were asking about the neonazi (a.k.a. alt-right) theory that Christianity was a deliberate psy-op by the Jews to destroy the Roman Empire (i.e. that this was on purpose, and the intent of the Jews), not the unrelated (and far more common) theory that Gentile (not Jewish) Christians first ruined Christianity and then they used it to inadvertently (not deliberately) destroy the Roman Empire through a resulting failure-mode of mass incompetence.

That is vastly more plausible.

But it’s still false because the causes of Rome’s collapse were pagan decisions made by the governing elite in the 3rd century, before Christianity took the reigns. In particular the lack of a functioning constitutional transmission of power and a mismanaged fiduciary economy, resulting in a 50-year Civil War ending in a Great Depression (which would have just as decisively destroyed the United States, and with the same lingering delay afterward, in a gilded pseudorecovery and decline).

See Yes, the Dark Ages Really Were a Thing and Did the Environment Kill Rome?

The Christians’ responsibility was in failing to recover it once in charge. They just drove it further into the ground by solving neither precipitating problem and diverting all resources self-defeatingly instead into accelerating fascism, ignorance, enslavement, and income disparity. See A Primer on Christian Anti-Intellectualism.

There appears to be a fallacious idea going around that because Christianity arose before the fall of the Roman Empire; it caused or was intended to cause the fall of that Empire.

That seems to point that the original questioner was making.

“Repulsed,” can you be more specific what you are referring to? Maybe quote the sentence that contains the “link” you are talking about?

The link you post to an even crazier theory which criticizes a rabbi is outrageously and obviously antisemitic. The writer even states this rabbi is the antichrist?!?!? If you are such an antisemite or try to credit another antisemitic writer, why should anyone listen to or read you. You are repulsive or you don’t read very well to the evidence (some other blog) that you aren’t very bright or not very thorough. Either way it’s disgusting.

I ran across one of your lectures today on YouTube, which then led me to this blog, and now I’m going to order one of your books.

I’ve spent many years initially being excited by writers like Atwill, and then consequently getting turned off by nutty conspiracy theories. Very refreshing to discover fact-based arguments and research that doesn’t then devolve into contradictory crazytown babble.

Thank you.

Find anything in that rant that (1) actually addresses anything I said and (2) is actually logical (as in, it’s not already obvious to you that it fails as a rebuttal, and thus actually does warrant a response from me).

Then post what you found meeting those two conditions here.

Yes, please. Oh that would be so wonderful.

Of course this can’t happen, because it can’t be done. But it would be doable if the thesis were credible. And that is precisely the point. Were that the case, it would have been the thesis I chose to compare with minimal historicity in OHJ, rather than the pared-down Doherty thesis I did find credible. Because Doherty followed the very procedure you recommend here. And succeeded. Because he really does have a credible thesis.

All I wanted to say is the way everyone is trying to force feed Dr Carrier their views is akin to going to France and upon not being understood, screaming one’s English message even louder. This is an exercise in futility.

At least speak to the man in the language he undesrtands, i.e take a position, back it up with well referenced evidence, identify it’s short-comings and existing rebuttals, defeat them with more well referenced evidence, draw a coherent conclusion that ties up the entire position succintly.

Nobody on this thread as I have seen including Atwill has manged to do that so far as pertains to this Roman Provinence theory (which is at least 150 years old published position (Bruno Bauer)) whether one thinks it is likely, plausible or otherwise, so the ire is to be exdpected.

Keep the conversations going though it is thoroughly entertaining.