outhouse

At least you caught the key word. Belief.

RareBird

Christianity was hijacked by the Roman mafia where Jesus was turned into the familiar golden calf. These usurpers realized that using religion to dominate a world (psychology) was cheaper and more sustainable than brutality (militarism). This may have been learned and not conceived. Buddhism for instance was turned into a massive religion a hundred years after the actual Buddha died. Most believe Ashoka, a great emperor a hundred years after Buddha, converted to Buddhism and built all the great statues and works that survive (supposedly out of remorse for killing relatives to get his power). But an atheist like me would tend more to think that he realized that he could sustain his own power more easily and get all the workers he needed to build shrines by being the "mythmaker" behind Buddhism which might otherwise have been obscured into antiquity. Whose to say that this pattern hasn't repeated itself again and again in history where there was some story of a special man which gained a small following wherefrom it was observed how co-opting this cult into a great religion meant power through a new psychology which got people to do things of their own will rather than reluctantly under the lash?

aa5874

Your argument is not logical at all. The Romans ALREADY had religion HUNDREDS of years before the Jesus story was fabricated. In addition, by the 4th century, there were many versions of the Jesus stories and Christians of antiquity were confused about their own religion.

In fact, the Jesus cult was a Laughing stock in the 2nd century based on Justin.

The Jesus cult was even considered cannibals and atheists. See Justin's writings.

outhouse

There is nothing of substance in your reply that can be substantiated.


As a matter of fact, the movement did the exact opposite of wht you posit.



It started out small, and stayed small fro a long time. Romans in the beginning looiked at this as another sect of Judaism and left it alone.

After it started to get going Romans persecuted members of the movement because they would not make sacrifices to the Emperor.

aa5874

Your post is based on your imagination because there is NO corroborative written statements of antiquity from the Jesus cult writers, Heretics and Non-Apologetics to support you--NONE.

In the Jesus cult writings, Acts of the Apostles, the Jesus cult started when the Holy Ghost came down from heaven AFTER Jesus had resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The Jesus cult did NOT need a human Jesus---they needed a Holy Ghost to start the Jesus cult.

In fact, under the POWER of the Holy Ghost 3000 persons were converted.

In the Bible, the very Scriptures of the Jesus cult, the cult started BIG and under the POWER of a Ghost.

Acts 1:8 KJV
Acts 2 Please don't tell me Acts is fiction because what you claim is no different to Acts---neither you nor the author of Acts is corroborated by non-apologetics of antiquity.

But, the author of Acts, unlike you is supported, by the Jesus cult writers.

Your claims about Jesus are without any history--Myths are without any history.

HJ of Nazareth as a human being with a human father did NOT start the Jesus cult.

It was a Holy Ghost and the disciples.

The Jesus cult started with Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.

spin

This is fair enough. Rarebird was asserting a view. However,...

(though no fact is coming)

Ooops, that's an assertion.

Ooops, that's another assertion.

Yup, another assertion. Popular, but an assertion, just the same.

One wonders whether the Romans knew anything about christians when they cracked down on people who would not make sacrifices.

outhouse

You may not like how I said it, but you know I'm right in context and content.

I believe so.


Starting with the martyrs in the second century.

WE have the one girl who wrote what roughly 160 CE who described her martyrdom for not making sacrifices, didn't they kill her baby as well?

Then those killed in Lyon 177, but I believe that was more political due to geographic location then all religiously motivated, so to speak.


Second century the Romans had their subordinates deal with Christians.

I don't think it was until the end of the second century around Septimus Severus reign when Christian persecution was local and sporadic. Christianity in itself was viewed as a subversive act.

spin

Neither you nor I know any such thing.

I don't. It was probably the scope of the libelli during the mid 3rd century. Before that anyone, be they of any religious persuasion, would have faced encouragement. Perhaps that included christians.

You might one day consider the fact that you don't pluck things out of the air, but from referenced sources.

That's a [non-committal adjective] assertion.

outhouse

Is Nero and his persecution a myth?

Is Tertullians Apologeticus all myth?

Was Clement making up all this in his fist letter to Corinthians?

Lyon persecution, all myth?



What about Pliny and Trajans conversations, giving them three chances to curse Christ?

outhouse

I might add, I do understand the redactions, using mythology in their reconstruction, ect ect , to make these martyrs more Christ like and Romans more venomous so to speak.