Mageth

But you do. That's quite strange.

The question is, though: did the early believers believe those things, or were they later additions, embellishments to the Jesus myth? In other words, did they believe Jesus because of what he said and did among them (non-miraculously), because of the kind of man he was (pure in spirit, holy, sinless, etc), or because he performed some neat tricks for them? Which would be better in your opinion?

Why, the demands you make on God! And here I thought Christians were supposed to be against requiring tests of God like that!

Here's a little story from the OT that you might benefit from reading:

1Kings 19:11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; [but] the LORD [was] not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; [but] the LORD [was] not in the earthquake: 12 And after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice [or a gentle wind]. 13 And it was [so], when Elijah heard [it], that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, [there came] a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

And then there's the words of Jesus to Thomas in John: something like blessed are those who have not seen and believed, right?

And didn't Jesus tell Satan, ""On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test'" (NASB) ?

Probably not. People then were more mystic-oriented, more superstitious and generally less skeptical, and even more likely to believe fantastic accounts of miracles without corroboration.

So, for you, it's sufficient that some 2000-year-old books, impossible to verify, report that Jesus did miracles? You didn't personally witness them, so why do you believe?

He's the alleged miracle worker we remember, the one which a very popular and successful religion was based on. But just because the religion survived, and so we remember the legend of Jesus, doesn't mean those things actually happened.

Mageth

What revolution did Jesus cause after his death? There was no revolution caused by Jesus or his followers after his death. If you're just gonna make stuff up as you go along...

One more time: The Romans in Jerusalem perhaps heard of the rumors that Jesus had arisen, but no account is given, even in the Bible, of any of them actually seeing Jesus after he was killed (heck, some Gospel accounts have him in Jerusalem, others in Galilee, anyways). So what they heard, perhaps, were rumors. I seriously doubt that that many people in Jerusalem initially believed the rumors. And I seriously doubt any Roman in the Government actually thought they were true. IOW, the Romans didn't think they'd failed to kill a peasant. And a couple of the soldiers in the garrison perhaps remembered tossing the body on the trash heap to be consumed by dogs, so if questioned they'd tell their superiors "Naah, that's BS. We tossed what was left of that guy to the dogs!"

The Romans no doubt heard all sorts of stuff like that, so it would not disturb them. In any case, initially, if they considered the first Christians at all, they merely thought of them as just one more new, rather strange sect of Judaism, one among many, one that believed their "messiah" had come back to life for a while (if the first Christians actually believed that, which is questionable itself). Probably good for a chuckle or two around the bath, not much more. There's absolutely no reason to think the Roman authorities had any concerns at all about this new, insignificant sect.

It wasn't until much later that Christianity had grown enough to really come to the attention of the Romans. And it wasn't until much later (decades) that any account, biblical or otherwise, of the physically resurrected Jesus was recorded.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A lot of theist bible scholars accept that the authorship of the Gospels is highly questionable. You really do need to read more. And, according to the Bible, accepting the authorship of whose name's on the Gospels, only two of the Gospels were claimed to be written by disciples.

Heh. Odd, I don't feel that way, or the need to feel that way, at all.

But that's OK. I'm kinda getting used to such vitriol from you. It's kind of endearing.

Magus55

I trust the validity of the Bible, and the accounts of Him doing that.




1Cr 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

1Cr 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

1Cr 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

The ressurection gave them hope. Without Jesus' miracles, then the apostles message and faith were in vain.



Nice of you to twist my words. I meant, if Jesus claimed to be God, yet didn't act like God, or come through on His promises, why would I trust Him?


Maybe they weren't as stubborn and self-centered?



I've been over my reasons for believing before, and i'm not gonna go through them again. In short, I find the Bible and the claims made therein, as well as personal experience, convincing.



Doesn't mean they didn't either. And the religion survived and was remembered because it was different than all the others.

Mageth

Then it appears you were not entirely truthful when you said "I wouldn't believe a man could walk on water, feed 5000 people with one loaf of bread, or rise from the dead unless He showed me He could."

Well, first, it's only the resurrection that is truly important to faith, no?

Second, I don't doubt that Paul et al believed Jesus was resurrected. I do doubt that the early Christians initially believed it was a physical resurrection. I believe that belief came later.

How the heck is God supposed to act? Walk on water? Turn water into wine? Kill a fig tree? etc etc etc. What do the miracles depicted in the Gospels have to do with how God is supposed to act? How can any human expect God to act a certain way?

And, for grins, compare those miracles to the OT miracles; parting the Red Sea, fire from heaven, ten massive plagues, global floods, pillars of smoke and fire, creating entire universes; now that's more like it.

Better yet, compare all those miracles to the account from Kings I gave; God was not in the strong wind; God was not in the earthquake; God was not in the fire. Those things are all things any of your average, run-of-the-mill Canaanite deity could do. God was in the still, small voice, in the gentle breeze. God doesn't need to prove himself to humans; that's the message.

He hasn't returned as promised. Why do you trust him?

Nice dig.

Compare and contrast to:

"I wouldn't believe a man could walk on water, feed 5000 people with one loaf of bread, or rise from the dead unless He showed me He could."

All religions are at least somewhat different than all the others. So what? And some are more successful than others for one reason or another. That's just the way things work out.

Christianity had one thing going for it though, that helped make it popular; its egalitarianism. Anyone could easily become a Christian, and in theory all Christians were supposed to be considered equals. (Unfortunately, it doesn't typically work out that way in practice.) Christianity appealed to the man on the street, the commoners. That and the promise of heaven; can't beat those future rewards. Poor people liked that. I'm meek, I'm poor, yet I can inherit the earth if I accept Christ! A great investment, that!

Christiainity was a religion that developed due to its time, like all other religions. It was a product of its time, of the social, economic and religious pressures of the First Century. It was quite similar to other Jewish sects that popped up along about the same time. It came out of the existing religions and sects, adapted concepts from several religions and philosophies, and formed itself into a widely acceptable, easily sellable form, with a huge customer base. It was a nice package, one that appealed to everyman, unlike many of the existing religions of the time.

The truth behind the myths of Christianity (or any other popular religion) aren't really important to explain its success. Religions are successful for more mundane reasons. Hinduism is successful. Buddhism is successful. Islam is successful. Christianity is successful.