Johnny Skeptic

I am assuming for the sake of argument that a historical Jesus existed.

In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D. In his article "The Impossible Faith," Christian apologist James Holding quotes N.T. Wright as saying "this subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."

The Gospels say that Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all of Galilee, and throughout all of Syria, and performed many more miracles that were not recorded, and that vast multitudes of people sometimes followed him. None of that went on in the second century A.D., but yet Christianity started to grow much faster. Why was that?

If Jesus had not ascended to heaven, and had continued to perform many miracles in many places, would some people have become Christians who did not become Christians?

bacht

The epistles say nothing about these things, maybe they're more reliable. The picture there is of almost invisible believers waiting for the end of the world (or sharing gnosis?)

Juststeve

I hate to quarrel with the premise but I’m going to do it anyway. I don’t see how anyone today can say how many followers Jesus had in his lifetime or how many Christians there were in CE 100. I would say however that until Jesus was crucified there could have been no Christians if we are defining Christians as those who rely upon the death and resurrection of Jesus for their salvation.

Steve

Cege

The epistles mention miracles performed by the apostles and (occasionally)believers in the name of Jesus, though.

The book of Acts records miracles performed by Jesus' followers and Christian converts. The miracles at and following Pentecost seem to be the main basis for conversion to Christianity from the beginning of Acts until the end.

Johnny Skeptic

I meant "why didn't Jesus attract more followers during his lifetime and during the lifestimes of the thousands of supposed eyewitnesses who saw him perform many miracles in many places?"

There is sufficient historical evidence that Christianity was very small and uninfluential during the first century. Rodney Stark and N.T. Wright believe that that was the case. So do Rodney Stark's many distinguished sources in "The Rise of Christianity." N.T. Wright is a distinguished Christian Bible scholar. How can a man perform many miracles in Jerusalem, throughout all of Galilee, and throughout all of Syria, and sometimes be followed by vast multitudes of people, and not attract the attention of the Roman government of Palestine, and first century historians who lived in the Middle East?

storytime

Because it was a story, with an invented hero, a new god-man whose numbers of followers were stated and alluded to as to leave open for the imagination, and that was thought to be enough by the writers.

Had the story been true, Caesar, Pilate, and whoever else in power would have been expelled immediately and Jesus placed on the Roman throne.

aa5874

The mention of "Christians" in the first century cannot confirm that the Christians believed in or followed a character called Jesus.

It is actually the reverse. There is insufficient historical evidence or no historical evidence that can show a character called Jesus who was worshiped as a God and Creator of heaven and earth in the 1st century.

thegdin

I do believe that the NT is believed to have been written around 100 or a tad later. So he wouldn’t have gained any followers because the story wasn’t even written yet.

However, you’re asking why he didn’t have more follwers using the premise that Jesus really existed and he really walked around preaching his "word". I would imagine that if he really was walking around then playing god philosopher, he didn’t have more followers because he (obviously) didn’t perform miracles. There were probably many "gods" walking around the world back then. It was probably difficult choosing one to follow.

spamandham

Stark's estimates are consistent with the assumption that there existed an ordinary human being cult leader Jesus. They are not consistent with the idea that Jesus really was a magic god man who could have easily converted the entire world in short order.

SirTristanC

Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" is an excellent story to illustrate why Jesus would not have had many (if any) followers during his lifetime (or second life, if you believe that).

The fact is that people back then were about as intelligent as modern day third-graders. If David Copperfield could go back in time, Christians would all be worshiping him. Or should I say "Copperfieldians"? They couldn't distinguish between trickery and actual magic, is my point.

The first actual accounts of Christ don't appear until 100 years after they claim he died.

As an example of this: My great-grandpa fought in World War 1, and killed over 100 Germans. He did this without any witnesses, much like the White Death of eastern Europe killed hundreds of Russians by himself. My great grandfather sustained a wound to the head that resulted in his left eye being removed to avoid sepsis (by a local village doctor), and lived the rest of his life donating blood and bone marrow to orphans.




Now, that story, while believable, has absolutely no way of being proven or disproven. A careful historian might note that donating bone marrow and blood was uncommon prior to the 1950's, and especially to orphans. They might also notice that a village doctor in war-torn early 1900's Europe would not have had access to sterile instruments to remove a damaged eye without causing further infection. So immediately the story, which seemed plausible albeit unlikely, is false.

This is how the story of Christ likely evolved. He was probably a very kind person that acted as a messiah for a group of people, traveling the countryside and doing things that may have seemed like miracles (though, given that upon his birth he supposedly received great wealth, it is possible he merely paid people to act ill/cured). Over time his legend grew to astronomical proportions.

An example of people believing something that never happened? The common phrase "Beam me up, Scotty!". It was never uttered in Star Trek (prior to the movie with the whales) and yet people instantly know it as a Star Trek reference despite its lack of authenticity. How? Why? It was spread around by some smart-ass who was mocking the show, in all likelihood.

Also, the American Revolutionary Tea Party! American textbooks (which I deplore) state the tea party happened due to unfair taxes on colonists without representation in British Parliament. Most Americans (over 95%) believe that to be factually accurate. It is not. The truth is that the British had lowered the prices on tea, and begun shipping higher quality tea than ever before. The colonists who organized the tea party were smugglers of dutch tea, and stood to lose substantial amounts of business due to the suddenly competitive British goods. They fabricated evidence of higher taxes (the American colonies actually had the lowest taxes of the entire empire) in order to incite action against the British, and held the tea party.

See how history can depend on the winners? It's only up to a certain point though, until actual evidence contradicts what has been taught, and a revolution of knowledge ensues.