Juststeve

Huon:

Actually, in the text it is some of the disciples who saw Jesus who had doubts, not just people who heard the story. The text reflects that there were doubters among the eyewitnesses. That is an interesting bit of data about the nature of a resurrection siting that needs to be considered, not obfuscated.

Also, threatening us with Hell is sort of jackass behavior. Are you one of those jackasses for Christ?

Steve

aa5874

There is NO reliable historical evidence that belief in the Jesus story grew rapidly before the 4th century.

You appear to be using the shameless NONSENSE in Acts of the Apostles. If we REMOVE the Hocus-Pocus Holy Ghost from the NT then we are LEFT with shameless NONSENSE.

In Acts of the Apostles, AFTER the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost "physically" ENTERED the disciples, all of a sudden THOUSANDS of people were converted on the same day after Peter preached the gospel to them.

Acts 2 - The shameless NONSENSE in Acts of the Apostles is NOT history it is blatant IMPLAUSBLE fiction.

Jews do NOT worship men as Gods. The very NT, the very Gospels claimed Jesus himself was CONDEMNED to be GUILTY of death because the JEWS considered he was a BLASPHEMER.

The very Acts of the Apostles claimed Stephen was STONED to death for making a similar BLASPHEMOUS remark like Jesus.

The rapid growth in the NT is NOT history it is shameless NONSENSE.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr could BARELY find anyone who BELIEVED the Jesus story.

It was an OLD man whom Justin met by PURE COINCIDENCE that told him about the Jesus story.

But, Justin Martyr claimed many believed in Marcion's Myth fable.

"First Apology" There were many other CHRISTIAN cults that did NOT believe the Jesus story up to the middle of the 2nd century and RIDUCULED those who believe Jesus was REAL.

"Dialogue with Trypho" XXXV Look at FACTS not the shameless NONSENSE in Acts.

The term "Christian" was an ambiguous name generally given to people who did NOT BELIEVE in the Gods of Roman/Greek mythology. In effect, CHRISTIANS were considered ATHEISTS in antiquity.

"First Apology" The Jesus story is NOT history just shameless NONSENSE.

Jesus was condemned to be guilty of death for BLASPHEMY yet Peter preached the very same BLASPHEMY PUBLICLY in JERUSALEM a thing which Jesus in the Synoptics NEVER did.

The very FIRST time Jesus PUBLICLY BLASPHEMED in the presence of the Sanhedrin he was DEAD in less than 12 hours in the Gospels.

Peter supposedly PUBLICLY BLASPHEMED for about 30 years, from the Day of Pentecost during the governorship of Pilate to his supposed death UNDER Nero in Rome.

The Jesus story is NOT history just shameless NONSENSE and blatant implausible fiction.

Juststeve

aa:

The Book Of Acts doesn't really enter into my thinking. Christianity was wide spread and influential enough, in Rome, for Constantine to make it his and the state religion early in the fourth century. That's pretty impressive growth.


Steve

Huon

I did not know that I am one of those Jackasses for Christ.
Sometimes, my jokes are too masked ?

The story of the empty tomb in gLuke and gMatt contains also late embellishments, unknown of gMark.

Toto

According to Rodney Stark, Christianity grew at a normal rate for a New Religious Movement, and its growth and success were due to non-theological factors. The particular beliefs and the stories to back them up were just the gimmick.

The Rise of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Juststeve

Huon:

If I missed the irony then I apologize for the jackass thing. I'm sensitive to this sort of thing because a long time ago when I was a practicing Jew we would be set upon by Christian missionaries try to recruit us. Threatened us with Hell they did. Didn't like it then, still don't.

Steve

Steve

Steve Weiss

Perhaps I missed your point. You are then not saying that a billion people believe in Christian mythology so there must be something to it?

Tristan Scott

Sure Steve, but don't you see (I mean that rhetorically), that's the whole point. When they decided what to put in your Bible in the 4th c. it was heavy on Paul, in fact Paul's teachings were what trumped Jesus' teachings. It would be much more accurate to call your religion Paulianity than Christianity.

Besides-it always seemed to me reading Paul's stuff that what he was really obsessing with was that "the end was near", and that Jesus was coming soon to take all the believers to a better life. This didn't happen so it was simple to re-interpret this to encompass the salvation business. These guys would put modern day pols to shame with their spin. Read the works of the Cappadocian Fathers regarding the Trinity sometime if you want a dizzying experience.

Steve Weiss

I look forward to the Jehovah's Witnesses ringing my doorbell. They make no inroads on me, and I think that conversing with someone who accepts only facts and reason is good medicine for them. Being a theist leaves one vulnerable to an attempt to switch one's loyalties. They know that you believe in a deity, you just worship the wrong one. With an atheist their tactics fall totally flat, and they are not adequately prepared for that encounter. I always marvel at the arrogance of someone who thinks that he can speak for the deity of his choice. These people are borderline psychotics as far as I am concerned. Prayer is a good example of such a symptom. There are many more.

Juststeve

Steven:

If I thought there was something to Christianity that would answer in my mind the question of why so many people believe it. The sort of question that interests me is why do lots of people often believe bull shit. Think here of astrology, ancient aliens or supply side economics. There are lots of counterfactual propositions to which many are wed, religious propositions are by no means the only kind. I think if you look at history you will find that much suffering has been caused by peopled who believed bull shit, and acted upon those beliefs.

Steve