The spread of Christianity

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to remind the OP that even the historical accuracy of "Jesus" is suspect:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Most (I could almost say all) historians disagree with the viewpoints to which you linked. There are so many non-Biblical, non-Christian references to Jesus in historical writings that His existence isn't really an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Most would agree that there was some person named "Jesus", that lived sometime during that time-period, but other than that, all of the details of this particular "Jesus" are historically suspect.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

The truth is, I'm not sure and find this to be a compelling enough reason to wonder why and learn more about Jesus.

There have been many people who have possessed incredibly persuasive powers. You say not to mention David Koresh, but how can you not? Along with Charles Manson and others? I'd like to say he was just a very charismatic and persuasive individual, but I'll acknowledge there may be more to it than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a couple of very important differences, Lestat. First and foremost, the other leaders cited ruled primarily out of fear. Jesus allowed anyone to leave his ministry anytime they wanted without any fear of earthly consequence.

This leads to a second important difference. Since many of these leaders led out of fear, their power quickly subsided over their followers following their death. There were a few diehards in every case, but most of the people had not really bought into the philosophy enough to considering dying for it long after their leader was dead and gone. Once again, there was no fear of recrimination once their leaders were gone. Manson is, of course, still alive but his power has diminished greatly because of his lengthy stay in prison.

Third, Jesus's apostles followed Christ through to their own deaths...all of them...100%. That's not a huge sample size, but we're talking about 12 out of 12 who were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for what secularists argue was nothing more than a dead man...seems that the odds would be fairly improbable.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">First and foremost, the other leaders cited ruled primarily out of fear. Jesus allowed anyone to leave his ministry anytime they wanted without any fear of earthly consequence. </font>

This did cross my mind, but I quickly dismissed it. I attended Catholic school as a kid and always felt that fear was heavily used combined with threats.

No earthly consequences? Maybe not. But what about eternal suffering? Gnashing your teeth in eternal hell? What about a rich man's chances of getting into heaven the same as a camel through an eye of a needle? What about Armageddon? Etc. etc.

The bottom line: You cannot make the argument that Jesus led without fear. Fear and guilt are constant themes that run throughout Catholic teachings.

[Lestat]

How many times on this forum have we heard the argument that believing in God is +EV? This really comes down to fear.

In fact, I think the single biggest reason why so many people believe in God is their longing to live forever in eternal bliss. This translates into FEAR of death or complete non-existence when this life ends. Hence they cling to a belief which if true, allows them to live forever.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to remind the OP that even the historical accuracy of "Jesus" is suspect:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Most (I could almost say all) historians disagree with the viewpoints to which you linked. There are so many non-Biblical, non-Christian references to Jesus in historical writings that His existence isn't really an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Most would agree that there was some person named "Jesus", that lived sometime during that time-period, but other than that, all of the details of this particular "Jesus" are historically suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying simply isn't true. Did you click my link?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to remind the OP that even the historical accuracy of "Jesus" is suspect:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Most (I could almost say all) historians disagree with the viewpoints to which you linked. There are so many non-Biblical, non-Christian references to Jesus in historical writings that His existence isn't really an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Most would agree that there was some person named "Jesus", that lived sometime during that time-period, but other than that, all of the details of this particular "Jesus" are historically suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying simply isn't true. Did you click my link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, did you click mine?

I'll copy/paste for the clicking-impaired:

Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate.

- Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage "appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative."

- Josh McDowell, Don Stewart and other conservative Christians accept the passage as legitimate.

There exists no consensus on a second passage in Antiquities which refers to Jesus' brother James, having being tried and stoned to death. Some consider it legitimate; others assess it to be a forgery.

* Cornelius Tacitus: He was a Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE. McDowell and Stewart accept his writings as a strong indicator of Jesus' existence in the early 1st century CE. However, the information could have been derived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century.

* Suetonius: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE. He wrote to "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is often used to support the historicity of Jesus, assuming that Jesus' title was misspelled. But Chrestus was in fact a common Greek name. It is likely that the reference is to a Jewish agitator in Rome by that name.

* Other ancient Roman historians: There were about 40 historians who wrote during the first two centuries. With the exception of the above, none stated that Jesus existed in the 1st century.

Here's another one:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times on this forum have we heard the argument that believing in God is +EV? This really comes down to fear.

In fact, I think the single biggest reason why so many people believe in God is their longing to live forever in eternal bliss. This translates into FEAR of death or complete non-existence when this life ends. Hence they cling to a belief which if true, allows them to live forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are certainly correct in that the Catholic Church and many protestant denominations use fear as a motivator. I have not, however, met one person whose faith came about as a result of the fear of hell. I'm sure they are out there, though. Most of the people that are motivated by fear are rule-based people who do what's right out of their own fears. Jesus, of course, teaches that noone can go to heaven on his or her own merits. This means that the most violent criminal can get to heaven. Many of these people are blocked in their own minds, however, because they can't make the leap of faith in the same way that Dr. Faustus could not. Faustus's dilemma, as you recall, was that since he had sold his soul to Satan, he thought that he could not get into heaven. The Bible teaches that this is untrue in a theoretical context. Many people believe that they have already "sold their soul" (not literally, but by being evil) and that, as such, they can't get into heaven. The irony is, of course, that they could do it were it not for their own unwillingness to take that leap of faith. The fact is simply that the more evil a person perpetrates, the larger the leap of faith it is to believe that God will forgive you. As such, it is often easier for people to dismiss the idea altogether. Since they can't "get in" anyway, it is +EV for their own emotional health to dismiss altogether.

Back to the original point: Most people are not actually Christian due to fear. It is normally quite the opposite. People who have a great fear of eternal damnation come up with an alternate theory on life in order to help them cope. Yes, I would agree that faith in God is +EV. However, if one were to choose to reject God, belief in God is -EV since it would keep them from enjoying the rest of their life. The human mind does not allow for concepts such as infinity or eternity (whether that be eternal bliss or eternal damnation), so that is usually not the main motivating factor. People do, however, understand what it means if one says, "If you don't do what I say, I will kill you." That makes sense and we understand the horrible and immediate consequence. For some reason, however, God chose not to put people on the spot...perhaps because he would rather people choose him out of love instead of fear.

I just don't think that the hell and brimstone converts that many people. It seems to do quite the opposite and send people running for the doors. Also, it puts people very much on the defensive. Generally, people on the defensive do not convert.

Notice that throughout the Gospels, Jesus did not single out indivduals and tell them they were going to hell. Even when he was being crucified, he asked God to forgive them. He simply gave the information about hell as a messenger might do, but most of his work centered on positive reinforcement....a life of meaning, love, friendship, honesty, and forgiveness. Add that to the interesting fact that Jesus was willing to let anyone follow with him at the time...even the most despised and sinful members of society as long as they would change. In not one of those accounts did someone come fearing hell. They came because they felt an emptiness in their own lives and were dissatisfied.

[txag007]

Here's the problem I have with what you are saying--

If the evidence you are presenting regarding the historical writings is true, then it should be easy to disprove the New Testament. C.S. Lewis was an athiest who set out to do exactly that. Instead, he became one of the most vocal proponents of Christianity. Even the radical scholars of the Jesus Seminar do not argue His existence, His claims to be God, or His healings and exorcisms.

Furthermore, legends like the one you claim generally take a significant length of time to develop. In this case, the first century church was made up of those who were living at the time of the alleged death.