Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Johnny, can't you see that you are driving threads off-topic by continually re-introducing these questions? If you want someone to address one of the many threads you've started, how about just issue a challenge and then a link back to that thread? We all have our hobby-horses, and I'll admit to doing it occasionally as well, but you do it far too often. I'm not saying don't post, just try to be a bit more sensitive about the topic in the thread. If you want to introduce a tangent, start a new thread or link to an old one. (Yes, I will grant the irony of my making an off-topic post in order to complain about someone making off-topic posts).

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Good suggestion. I will start a new thread.

Originally Posted by Theist

A point that I was not actually addressing but I should point out that "Allah" is God so I think you mean Muhammad. It's fairly common to get this argument but consider how and where Islam came from. It did not develop in a subjugated land that was ripe with expectations of a Messiah that would overthrow their rulers and turn their nation into the rulers of the world, while presenting a Messiah that gave His endorsement to Rome as their ruler and asking the people to be patient for rewards beyond this life. It' s not the numbers of people that believed so much as the idea that they accepted something so completely against their expectations and the religious belief of their community, family and friends. It is the fact that they did this with the knowledge that they would probably be persecuted beyond simple ridicule. They accepted and stood firm in their belief in the face of torture and death. That they did this in the thousands only makes it more astounding and unlikely were it not true.

And yet it was not only "serfs and slaves" that accepted this message. People of wealth and power also accepted it. Lest you think that the Roman Empire was pleased with a religion that "pacified" the masses, consider the persecution that was executed against Christian by both the Jewish community and their Roman Overlords. Even Constantine, the supposed "first Christian emperor" persecuted any Christians that would not accept his personal vision for Christianity.

The Jews already had "hope for an afterlife". This would not have been a factor in the thinking of the early adopters of Christianity. I suppose there could have been some "gullible people" too since there are in all segments of society. These certainly wouldn't account for all that many, particularly in view of the persecution that many of them would have undergone. They could and most probably would have been "gulled" right out of their belief before too long.

It would be much more fitting to compare Jim Jones' followers to the followers of the false messiah's that were large on promises of glory but quickly failed to deliver and usually ended dead with no following at all. Jesus did not try to fulfill what the people's expectations were. He presented them with a radical departure from those expectations. He was not what they were looking for and when He died, the movement did not die with Him but, in fact grew very rapidly.

The followers of Jim Jones came from a society that practiced freedom of religion, they were never really large in numbers, Jones could really only control them by isolating them and the movement died out when the leader died.

BTW, there are strong indications that many of the followers that died that day were actually murdered, indicating that he was only able to bring a relatively small group of people under his influence enough for them to actually be willing to die with him. I can find no record that anyone believes in Jim Jones since them much less died for their belief since then.

All of the material of the New Testament was written while pagan Rome was in power. The period of "oral tradition" was very short, lasting to the end of the lives of the eyewitnesses at most. The Book of John was probably the last of the Four legitimate Gospels written and that was probably dictated directly by John at the very end of his life. Everything Paul wrote was even earlier since most if it is in the form of letters of communication during his ministries.

The material was "standarized" later but the material already existed and most was in wide distribution well before this took place. The process of Canonization was actually concerned with the standardization of what was proven to be of value in learning the teachings Christianity. The process was not to Standardize belief so much as it was to build a library of material that all of the leaders of the various churches could be assured accurately reflected the true teachings of God.

Leaders from different regions and churches, were all involved in the process of evaluation. The material that was being used in one place for instruction didn't necessarily match all of the material used in another. There had, for some time been material introduced that was controversial in some churches and accepted in others. A large part of the reason for this is because some churches already had material that contradicted the newer material and other churches may not have had the older, more accurate material. The process of evaluating all the material that all of the churches used was the logical way to start addressing this problem. It was a lengthy process that actually happened over years as new material was submitted for evaluation. In the end, the churches were able to "standardize their belief using material that all the people could be reasonable sure was the same as that used but most of the rest of Christianity.

The idea that a single leader could have changed anything that was already written during this process is extremely unlikely because everything was evaluated by many different people for it accuracy. The Church was not so well organized that it was possible to have one or two dictate to everyone else and expect it just be accepted.

In the end, they didn't "write" the Bible, they simply put into one volume, all of the material that was accurate to use for instructing people about God and Christianity.

Now I think you have mixed time periods.

The Gospel was not written immediately because, as you said, that knowledge was spread through their preaching. It was not until the end of the lives of the people that witnessed these things that they were recorded in writing much as people today record their experiences for posterity. Hand copies were the only way to produce new copies but the use of "monasteries" for this waited until Monastic Christianity came along, two or three hundred years later.

Some of the rulers ignored Christianity, at least for a time but support for the early church in secular government isn't indicated in history. In fact, Tacitus indicates something very different when he discusses how Nero used the Christians in Rome as an easy target for blame in the burning of Rome. It was not "gullible followers" that were so dedicated to Christianity that, given three chances to retract their belief, they chose to be torn apart by dogs, or burned as human torches. This was nothing like a spur of the moment decision to share some poisoned fruit drink or to pop a pill and die. This was the acceptance of belief that was strong enough for people to maintain it with the sure knowledge of a torturous and prolonged death. They could easily have avoided it but denying God and making sacrifices to the gods of Rome but they did not.

Promoting Christianity for money also isn't supported in the record. There is no indication that the leaders of the original Christian movement every got rich or live wealthy lives. Paul, often worked at His trade as a tent maker to support himself because He was not supported but the "church", being completely dependent upon the local Christians for support. IF he happen to be in an area with an established Christian community, he could count on them for food and shelter but he never amassed wealth after his conversion to Christianity. In those passages in the Bible were we see offerings taken, we also see that their purpose was specified and it was always to help fellow believers that were undergoing hardship and privation for some reason.

People that do not believe keep trying to tell me that I am afraid of death. I do not fear death. You can believe it if it pleases you to do so but it is doesn't reflect the fact, at least, not for me personally and my observation of the Christians around me. The "afterlife" is a promised reward but not really the central purpose of Christianity which is to learn to love God and live as He wills for us to live.

This is not the reason that I believe. What I have presented in this thread is predicated upon the subject matter of the thread. These things are compelling to me but not the ultimate source of my belief. That is found in my experience as a man in a relationship with God.

I think this is actually fairly easy. Which one brings you closest to the real Creator? Which one brings you results that are beyond what you could reasonable expect to see in your life? Which one accepts you as you are.

Christianity is the only religion in the world that doesn't require us to "work" our way into God's good graces. All other religions force man to make ourselves more acceptable to their god before we can count on that religion's version of "salvation".

Even from a logical point of view Christianity makes more sense. Assuming that a person believes in God, why would we be capable of doing anything that would have any real meaning to a being capable of creating this world? This is what "works" really is about when seen in this context. If I have to make a certain number of pilgrimages to places or I must reach a certain mental state or must preform a list of tasks, I am "working" my way under my own power. The God of Christianity recognized that this unfairly stacks the deck against those that cannot, for whatever reason, accomplish those things. Our God has determined that salvation is free to everyone that is honest about wanting it.

When I look at other religions, I am constantly confronted with people's need to do something on their own to "win" salvation. The only prerequisite in Christianity is honestly seeking salvation. The relationship that real Christians build with God is based upon love and trust rather than what we have done to deserve it. It always seems to me that other religions focus upon attaining a point in their experience where god will interact with the believer while Christianity affords us the ability to immediately start to forge a relationship with God simply because we desire to do so.

In the end, for me anyway, Christianity is the only logical choice. Assuming that any created being ever could do something to make the creator pay attention and save me just doesn't make sense but as I have already said, I do not rely on logic alone or, really, at all to determine this. I have experiences that confirm my belief to me.

This is not "martyrdom", it is suicide and murder. Your comparison is invalid.

Originally Posted by Theist

consider how and where Islam came from. It did not develop in a subjugated land that was ripe with expectations of a Messiah that would overthrow their rulers and turn their nation into the rulers of the world, while presenting a Messiah that gave His endorsement to Rome as their ruler and asking the people to be patient for rewards beyond this life. It' s not the numbers of people that believed so much as the idea that they accepted something so completely against their expectations and the religious belief of their community, family and friends. It is the fact that they did this with the knowledge that they would probably be persecuted beyond simple ridicule. They accepted and stood firm in their belief in the face of torture and death. That they did this in the thousands only makes it more astounding and unlikely were it not true.

Originally Posted by Theist

The story requires people with wealth to take on responsibilities that their society didn't require of them. The poor were told that their reward was in the future, rather than immediate.
...
And yet it was not only "serfs and slaves" that accepted this message. People of wealth and power also accepted it. Lest you think that the Roman Empire was pleased with a religion that "pacified" the masses, consider the persecution that was executed against Christian by both the Jewish community and their Roman Overlords. Even Constantine, the supposed "first Christian emperor" persecuted any Christians that would not accept his personal vision for Christianity.

Originally Posted by Theist

It would be much more fitting to compare Jim Jones' followers to the followers of the false messiah's that were large on promises of glory but quickly failed to deliver and usually ended dead with no following at all. Jesus did not try to fulfill what the people's expectations were. He presented them with a radical departure from those expectations. He was not what they were looking for and when He died, the movement did not die with Him but, in fact grew very rapidly

Originally Posted by Theist

As for the writers of the Gospel, they committed treason to Rome and the rulers of Jewish society in writing what they wrote.

Originally Posted by Theist

I think this is actually fairly easy. Which one brings you closest to the real Creator? Which one brings you results that are beyond what you could reasonable expect to see in your life? Which one accepts you as you are.

Originally Posted by Theist

Christianity is the only religion in the world that doesn't require us to "work" our way into God's good graces. All other religions force man to make ourselves more acceptable to their god before we can count on that religion's version of "salvation".

Even from a logical point of view Christianity makes more sense. Assuming that a person believes in God, why would we be capable of doing anything that would have any real meaning to a being capable of creating this world? This is what "works" really is about when seen in this context. If I have to make a certain number of pilgrimages to places or I must reach a certain mental state or must preform a list of tasks, I am "working" my way under my own power. The God of Christianity recognized that this unfairly stacks the deck against those that cannot, for whatever reason, accomplish those things. Our God has determined that salvation is free to everyone that is honest about wanting it.

When I look at other religions, I am constantly confronted with people's need to do something on their own to "win" salvation. The only prerequisite in Christianity is honestly seeking salvation. The relationship that real Christians build with God is based upon love and trust rather than what we have done to deserve it. It always seems to me that other religions focus upon attaining a point in their experience where god will interact with the believer while Christianity affords us the ability to immediately start to forge a relationship with God simply because we desire to do so.

Originally Posted by Theist

In the end, for me anyway, Christianity is the only logical choice. Assuming that any created being ever could do something to make the creator pay attention and save me just doesn't make sense but as I have already said, I do not rely on logic alone or, really, at all to determine this. I have experiences that confirm my belief to me.

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Of course!

Now, I have no experience presenting Syriac, but I can work something out if you get it transcribed.

Originally Posted by Jayco

I was having a conversation with one of my Christian buddies and I was trying to tell him the resurrection of Jesus Christ more than likely never happened, and this was his response:

Now, I highly doubt he's done research on any of this -- and was probably spoon-fed it by his preacer -- and I know I've done very little research of my own. In fact, I would absolutely love to know more about the lives of early Christians, especially the immediate generations of the Gospel authors. Any input would be fantastic, thanks a lot.

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

In the same era,the religion of Isis and Horus was also persecuted by the Romans. Now, the people who clung stubbornly to Isis worship would not allow themselves to be harassed for a false belief. Therefore Isis exists.

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~brantl...page.html#Isis
In the first century BC, the cult came to Rome, where it became popular and widespread. It received a bad reputation with many outsiders due to the moral discipline of some of the worshippers and rites. Some of the rites were viewed as pornographic. There were continued attempts by Roman authority to suppress the Cult of Isis, which originated in the East.