pharoah

I disagree with this. Modern history shows us that many people we know existed can make grand claims about themselves (or have claims made about them) and fool many. Just think Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Emperer Haile Selassie, the Japanese emperors, etc. The issue is not existence or nonexistence, it's credulity, and sadly P.T. Barnum was right: there's a sucker born every minute.

Malachi151

The analogy doesn't work. Most of these people just made grand claims about other figures.

Joseph Smith never claimed to be a god himself or to be able to heal people or raise the dead or float up to heaven, etc. He was just a person who told stories about OTHER such special people. Same with Hubbard. The Japanese emperors were never even seen by the people, they may as well have been imaginary and they were the centers of an entire culture of propaganda, not some small side branch that was being challenged. David Koresh and Jim Jones were cults of personality themselves.

What we are talking about here is the use of the stories about Jesus by evangelicals.

They went and told people, "So and so healed people, rose the dead, walked on water, was crucified and came back to life, and floated up into heaven while people watched."

That's much easier to say about someone who never existed than it is to say about someone that did exist. For someone who did exist people will say "Thats' not what happened, I remember his sorry ass.. blah, blah..."

DramaQ

P.T. Barnum never said that. But it's a great example of how these kinds of myths develop.

Mythra

The OP also seems to insinuate that there was a rapid growth of christianity among jews in the first century. Although a popular concept in christian thought, it doesn't seem to hold much water.

It wasn't until the fourth century that christianity's growth really took off. And by then no one would have the slightest idea whether the gospel story was historical or not.

Amaleq13

Actually, he does at least according to Doherty. What I presented is essentially Doherty's interpretation of Philippians 2 and 1 Cor 2:5-7.

I thought the point of the effort was to offer what a missionary would say, if he was to be more explicit.

gnosis92

So if he took on flesh, wouldn't would be converts ask for historical details?

gnosis92

As Ehrman pointed out, it's historically plausible that Jesus immediate followers spread the message to their immediate friends and neighbors and radiated outwards. Ditto John the Baptist.

Malachi151

Lot's of stuff is plausible, but that doesn't make it so. First you have to show that there was a Jesus, and that he had followers.

Why is it that Paul says that Peters and the others are apostles, not a disciples, and that they were all called in the same manner that he was, i.e. by revelation.

Why does Paul think that his message from revelation is so much better than other people's if other people's message came directly from the mouth of the real living Jesus?

Why does Paul not mention any sayings or teachings of Jesus, aside from the rare occasion when he prefaces them by saying "I have received from the Lord", or "I had a revelation", etc.

Why is Paul's discussion of Jesus metaphorical?

These religions simply didn't operate the way that the OP claims.

They were ritualistic mystery religions, where people spoke in riddles and enigmas about the end of the world, the time to repent, the corruption of the wealthy, the plight of the oppressed, and they formed family type bonds and helped each other with needs and acted as a support structure for one another, their rites creating a type of fraternity.

The spread of Christianity had far more to do with the fraternity effect than it did with whether people thought Jesus was real or not.

People back then were gullible fools who believed just about anything, and were in despair and looking for a message of hope, no matter how absurd.

Historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with the efficacy of the religion.

gnosis92

Well going back the one point of the OP, I don't see how you can say religions don't operate the way OP claims since viritualy all religions are started by someone, and in competition with competing claims. Other posters have addressed the other points to varying degrees.

If there are at least two and possibly more messianic movements within first century judaism, John the Baptist, Jesus, Theudas, the Samaratin, etc., would you expect a movement among first century Jews to be most popular those based on real historical figures or mythical creations. I think both Josephus and Acts (though the mouthpiece of Gamaliel) have pointed out there were many movements headed by charismitic preachers.

Malachi151

I just don't agree with this at all. For one thing "Christianity" was apparently never that popular among Jews anyway. It's real popularity was among non-Jews.

You, and others, keep confusing the subject of the story with the advocate for the religion.

The advocate for the religion does not have to be the subject of the story.

Mormonism was started by Joseph Smith, about a guy named Mormon. Mormon wasn't the advocate for the religion, Mormon was a fictional character.

Look at how popular the cult of Dionysus got, extremely so. Does that mean that Dionysus had to be real? Who were the advocates for the religion?

What is John the Baptist really was preaching about the coming of the Messiah, as I suspect that he was. If John the Baptist was preaching the coming of the Messiah, then people after the death of John the Baptist saying that the Messiah had come, and it was Jesus Christ, would not have even been in competition with JtB, they would have been building off of his momentum.