Is it true that Christians burned ROME when NERO was the Emperor?

Question

Why did Christians do that? Wasn't theirs a religion of peace?
Some Christians confessed to the crime, just in case you say that Nero did it as a result of madness.

Answer 1

Of all the research I did on this subject for my thesis, I concluded years ago the true culprit of the Great Fire of Rome.

Nero was not responsible for the fall of Rome...that's ridiculous, but he did have that fire started while away at his villa.

The fire started at the Forum Romanum, between the Capitoline and Palatine hills, and happened to spread by wind to the exact area (where the Coliseum now stands) that Nero had selected for the location of his golden palace.

It was well orchestrated, so as he was not actually in the city at the time of the fire. The fire spread over the Palatine Hill and the tenements were reduced to rubble, to make way for Nero's magnificent palace.

Christians were arrested and tried for a crime that they confessed to committing, but it's likely that they were forced to confess by torture, or didn't even confess at all. When you're dealing with a man like the Emperor of Rome, especially Nero, it didn't matter if you were innocent or guilty; your fate belonged to him.

Answer 2

Christians were forced to confess to the crime--it was Nero's reign of terror and he wanted a scapegoat in the Christians. But Nero was responsible for the setting of those fires.
Do some research.

Answer 3

There were some completely disillusioned individuals who claimed to be Christians---who said they started the fire. But as history reports----Nero played while Rome burned. Nero was responsible for the fall of Rome. Read some history books and you will find the truth.

Answer 4

Tacitus, a Roman historian born about 55 C.E., tells of the rumor charging that Nero was the one responsible for burning Rome (64 C.E.), and then says: “Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices [as the Romans viewed matters], whom the crowd styled Christians. . . . First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race.

Answer 5

It wasn't the Christians. The fire started as an accident in the Merchant section and the winds blew it quickly out of control. Nero used the fire as an excust to blame a tiny Christian sect as scapegoats and then fed them all to the lions.

Answer 6

I saw on the History Channel that Nero had designed a new city and needed to burn the old one to get it out of the way...Christians made a convenient scapegoat.
Nero was also an amateur musician and would give concerts at which it would be very unwise to not say he was good.

Answer 7

No, that was Nero's story after he had it burned. And of course you are correct in that it wouldn't make any sense for the Christians to have done this. This is history, if you choose to not accept it, then that is sad.

Answer 8

Confessed under torture. They had no motive and no commentator of the era believed Nero's claim. Any reputable historian regards it as analygous to Goering and Hitler's claim that communists had torched the Reichstag.

Answer 9

No, Nero made a scapegoat of the Christians because he needed one. The public was accusing Nero of starting it so he had to redirect their anger. The origin of the fire was probably accidental, but the time of year meant they had pretty constant winds fanning the flames.

Answer 10

1)Nero burned Rome, and blamed it on Christians which started a great persecution against them in which many were killed. 2) If I tortured you enough, I bet I could get you to confess to something you didn't do.