Hey i know how Jesus was able to walk on water

[husker_99]

"Among the poor it grew but not until anybody with any real power came along. " This is what I said. Early Christianity was fragmented into many groups and if it wasn't solidified by Constantine would have never taken hold as much as it did.

I hope you understand what you said and what you claimed to say are different and mean different things. Anyways, Constantine was a great and powerful initiator of the growth of the church, but if he wouldn't have converted and adopted and supported Christianity, he would have been replaced by someone that would have. Radical church growth wasn't a response to Constantine's conversion, rather, Constantine's conversion was a response to the growing of the Christian faith all among his people.

No it's not. Poor people don't wield power. Even if Constantine hadn't accepted Christianity he would be in no danger from the Christians. The Emporer after Constantine was a pagan and ruled for 5 years and died at the hands of the Persians and he was reverting Christianity's influence. Now he didn't do much because of his death and short rule but acting like Christiany was a superpower religion is not true, yes it had started to attract people but not influence and power it would have once an Emporer was on their side. Yes if Constantine not had gave Christianity a hand it would have happened much slower and not as great as it came to be.

 

[knapplc]

As far as the conversions, yeah I guess it was a bit of a stretched point. However, Knapp, I disagree on the numbers being equal. The number of Christians in the Mediterranean jumped from about 25,000 to over 20,000,000 in less than two centuries, and all before Constantine.

Source?

Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: reactivating the missional church (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 18

Also, it may be quite obvious but I think it bears reminding; that occurred in an era where there was no internet, twitter, tv, radio, or even printing presses. I find it quite remarkable and unequaled by any other movement, before or since. It leads me to think some higher power was at work (pun intended).

A couple of things. Hirsch does not have hard data here; there were no census takers asking about religion back then. Certainly it cannot be denied that there was "meteoric growth" as Hirsch describes around the time of Constantine, but becoming the State religion of Rome and subsequent European kingdoms and fiefdoms throughout the next millennium and a half undoubtedly aided that, much in the same way that Islam's meteoric growth was aided by its adoption as the "state religion" (an incorrect definition, but using it for the sake of convenience) by the Caliphates of the Middle East in the 15th century.

The growth of Christianity is not largely different than the growth of any other world faith. It is largely the result of heads of state forcing their subjects to follow their religion.

 

[Undone]

The growth of Christianity is not largely different than the growth of any other world faith. It is largely the result of heads of state forcing their subjects to follow their religion.

The biggest thing for me though is that the story of the disciples/apostles is very unique. They weren't being forced to follow Christ. They gave their lives for their commitment and level of "convince-edness" of what they had witnessed. That's a huge deal, in my opinion. They personally weren't trying to gain anything from following Christ, and even if they had, they stood to gain nothing.

Just let that sink in - they died for what they had witnessed and knew to be true. That's what the new testament documents. I'm not an expert on the branch davidians or Jamestown...I think someone had brought them up in this thread or the other...but I don't believe that those groups were claiming to be witnessing/doing the supernatural in their activities. Could be wrong about that, if so, please correct.

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

The growth of Christianity is not largely different than the growth of any other world faith. It is largely the result of heads of state forcing their subjects to follow their religion.

The biggest thing for me though is that the story of the disciples/apostles is very unique. They weren't being forced to follow Christ. They gave their lives for their commitment and level of "convince-edness" of what they had witnessed. That's a huge deal, in my opinion. They personally weren't trying to gain anything from following Christ, and even if they had, they stood to gain nothing.

Just let that sink in - they died for what they had witnessed and knew to be true. That's what the new testament documents. I'm not an expert on the branch davidians or Jamestown...I think someone had brought them up in this thread or the other...but I don't believe that those groups were claiming to be witnessing/doing the supernatural in their activities. Could be wrong about that, if so, please correct.

The only proof any of those people even existed is in the NT. So we don't know if they died for anything at all. The earliest writings of Mark were dated at roughly 70 CE if I'm not mistaken. The rest appear to come after that. Not to mention the average life expectancy at that time was around 29. The only writings of Jesus are in the bible as well and are 2nd hand accounts

 

[Undone]

Hi Hedley,

I posted the following in #58 of this thread:

"2. The typical viewpoint of the Biblical skeptic is that Jesus' mention of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the book of Matthew (which is historically undeniable by non-Biblical sources and occurred in 70 A.D.) is some kind of empirical evidence that at least Matthew was written after 70 A.D. And I'm trying to keep this short, because I think that people actually read short posts. The point is though that this is admittedly prophecy, by the Biblical account. But here's the kicker - no other Gospel (let alone any other New Testament document) records or even alludes to the destruction of the temple, even though there are occasions in which a description of such would have been noteworthy.

That makes a pretty strong case these originals were actually written prior to 70 A.D."

The only proof any of those people even existed is in the NT.

Widely accepted by most present-day scholars are the accounts of Tacitus (a Roman historian and orator) and Flavius Josephus.

"Therefore to squelch the rumour that Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called "Christians," (a group) hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated." (Annals 15.44)

Flavius Josephus also made mention of both John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus in the first century. These references are almost universally acknowledged as legit by modern scholars. There is then the Testimonium Flavanium which directly mentions the death of Christ by Pilate. This excerpt is widely agreed upon by modern scholarship to have been edited by Christian influence a few centuries later, however, it's widely agreed that the original autograph by Josephus made mention of Jesus' death by Pilate.

So in short, I believe your claim is laid to rest that there or no secular references "those people."

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Jo Flav: he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as 2nd hand.

Tac: birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity.

 

[knapplc]

The growth of Christianity is not largely different than the growth of any other world faith. It is largely the result of heads of state forcing their subjects to follow their religion.

The biggest thing for me though is that the story of the disciples/apostles is very unique. They weren't being forced to follow Christ. They gave their lives for their commitment and level of "convince-edness" of what they had witnessed. That's a huge deal, in my opinion. They personally weren't trying to gain anything from following Christ, and even if they had, they stood to gain nothing.

Just let that sink in - they died for what they had witnessed and knew to be true. That's what the new testament documents. I'm not an expert on the branch davidians or Jamestown...I think someone had brought them up in this thread or the other...but I don't believe that those groups were claiming to be witnessing/doing the supernatural in their activities. Could be wrong about that, if so, please correct.

Whether they were or weren't convinced of the divinity of Koresh and/or Jones really isn't relevant, is it? Their followers died on their behalf, based solely on the faith they had in their leaders. Both Jones and Koresh proclaimed they were "the messiah" to their followers, however. But even if they didn't, their followers still followed them right into the grave based on their theology.

 

[Undone]

Whether they were or weren't convinced of the divinity of Koresh and/or Jones really isn't relevant, is it? Their followers died on their behalf, based solely on the faith they had in their leaders. Both Jones and Koresh proclaimed they were "the messiah" to their followers, however. But even if they didn't, their followers still followed them right into the grave based on their theology.

Actually, that wasn't what I was driving at. This was the comparison, and I believe it's a huge one: Jesus' disciples claim to have witnessed Jesus performing the supernatural, as well as performing the ultimate supernatural act - being raised from the dead. I don't believe that Jones and Koresh claimed to have personally performed the supernatural.

 

[Undone]

Jo Flav: he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as 2nd hand.

Tac: birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity.

Good research, and I'm certainly not arguing with any of the above.

So how do you feel about the fact that the accounts of Alexander the Great are believed to have been written four generations after his life? Should we throw them out, too?

 

[Landlord]

The growth of Christianity is not largely different than the growth of any other world faith. It is largely the result of heads of state forcing their subjects to follow their religion.

The biggest thing for me though is that the story of the disciples/apostles is very unique. They weren't being forced to follow Christ. They gave their lives for their commitment and level of "convince-edness" of what they had witnessed. That's a huge deal, in my opinion. They personally weren't trying to gain anything from following Christ, and even if they had, they stood to gain nothing.

Just let that sink in - they died for what they had witnessed and knew to be true. That's what the new testament documents. I'm not an expert on the branch davidians or Jamestown...I think someone had brought them up in this thread or the other...but I don't believe that those groups were claiming to be witnessing/doing the supernatural in their activities. Could be wrong about that, if so, please correct.

The only proof any of those people even existed is in the NT. So we don't know if they died for anything at all. The earliest writings of Mark were dated at roughly 70 CE if I'm not mistaken. The rest appear to come after that. Not to mention the average life expectancy at that time was around 29. The only writings of Jesus are in the bible as well and are 2nd hand accounts

You act as if the Bible is one single book put together from one source. Also, you are factually way off here. The gospels were more likely to be the last documents penned and have the latest dates of expected authorship. All of Paul's letters and most of the other New Testament books are all placed before then. Either way, Mark's gospel is put somewhere between A.D. 45 and A.D 60. You're also mistaken in saying there are no non-biblical accounts of any of Jesus' followers.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

 

[Junior]

No, you didn't come off sounding condescending - I knew what you meant.

But again, and this is not a rhetorical question...I truly am extremely curious as to what "non-believing" people believe in general about origin. And also how much time they spend thinking about it. Because as you stated, it's the most important question humanity can ponder.

For me personally, saying that the universe exists solely inside of itself, that matter and space merely "are what they are," that the universe is self-sustaining or infinitely old or any other materialist suggestion is not good enough for me. To me, and obviously admitting that it's merely an opinion, that is illogical. And I mean that sincerely.

As a non-believer in God, I can tell you what I believe... The big bang happened and over eons, life evolved. We can see it in the genetic code from bacteria to humans. And it is extraordinarily unlikely that we are the only planet in the universe with life on it. Microbial life must exist out there somewhere (the universe is just too damn big and microbial life too damn diverse for it not to).

But how'd the matter for the big bang get there in the first place? That's a good question that I don't think anyone will ever be able to answer. I would just charge you with answering the question "where did God come from?" as a rebuttal. You say that saying the universe exists solely inside itself or is infinitely old doesn't cut it for you, but then you must have the same questions about God himself, right? The bible never addresses his creation. How did he come to be?

 

[knapplc]

Whether they were or weren't convinced of the divinity of Koresh and/or Jones really isn't relevant, is it? Their followers died on their behalf, based solely on the faith they had in their leaders. Both Jones and Koresh proclaimed they were "the messiah" to their followers, however. But even if they didn't, their followers still followed them right into the grave based on their theology.

Actually, that wasn't what I was driving at. This was the comparison, and I believe it's a huge one: Jesus' disciples claim to have witnessed Jesus performing the supernatural, as well as performing the ultimate supernatural act - being raised from the dead. I don't believe that Jones and Koresh claimed to have personally performed the supernatural.

That's parsing the issue pretty severely, though. I have no claim to know what Koresh and/or Jones allege to have done by way of miracles, but it's indisputable they claimed to be messianic. Miracles performed becomes a benchmark that nobody can claim to have knowledge of with any kind of certainty. We're told that in a book we know wasn't written in the instant, but years (if not over a century) later.

We have the same "evidence" that Jesus performed miracles as we have for Muhammad splitting the moon in two in Surah. We also know that Muhammad's followers were persecuted and some killed for adhering to their faith.

 

[knapplc]

So how do you feel about the fact that the accounts of Alexander the Great are believed to have been written four generations after his life? Should we throw them out, too?

We should treat with skepticism that which we cannot verify, certainly.

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

The growth of Christianity is not largely different than the growth of any other world faith. It is largely the result of heads of state forcing their subjects to follow their religion.

The biggest thing for me though is that the story of the disciples/apostles is very unique. They weren't being forced to follow Christ. They gave their lives for their commitment and level of "convince-edness" of what they had witnessed. That's a huge deal, in my opinion. They personally weren't trying to gain anything from following Christ, and even if they had, they stood to gain nothing.

Just let that sink in - they died for what they had witnessed and knew to be true. That's what the new testament documents. I'm not an expert on the branch davidians or Jamestown...I think someone had brought them up in this thread or the other...but I don't believe that those groups were claiming to be witnessing/doing the supernatural in their activities. Could be wrong about that, if so, please correct.

The only proof any of those people even existed is in the NT. So we don't know if they died for anything at all. The earliest writings of Mark were dated at roughly 70 CE if I'm not mistaken. The rest appear to come after that. Not to mention the average life expectancy at that time was around 29. The only writings of Jesus are in the bible as well and are 2nd hand accounts

You act as if the Bible is one single book put together from one source. Also, you are factually way off here. The gospels were more likely to be the last documents penned and have the latest dates of expected authorship. All of Paul's letters and most of the other New Testament books are all placed before then. Either way, Mark's gospel is put somewhere between A.D. 45 and A.D 60. You're also mistaken in saying there are no non-biblical accounts of any of Jesus' followers.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

I already addressed a few of those and why they are not "proof" the others you mentioned.

Pliny the younger: born 62 years after Jesus died. His writings show he received his info from Christian believers. He is a 2nd hand account

Thallus: never had any writings found only a few writings that used his as a citation 200 plus years after the death of Jesus. He speaks of an eclipse but gives no mention of when or why. That shows no mention of Jesus at all.

The Talmud: Yeshu is not Jesus, according to scholars Yeshu depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the crucifixion

Lucian: was discussing what "the Christians" believe. Nothing in that even remotely speaks of the existence of Jesus. Heck it was written what? 120 years after Jesus died?

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Jo Flav: he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as 2nd hand.

Tac: birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity.

Good research, and I'm certainly not arguing with any of the above.

So how do you feel about the fact that the accounts of Alexander the Great are believed to have been written four generations after his life? Should we throw them out, too?

Did he make wine out of water and heal the sick? Ptolemy knew him personally. Alexander the Great is said to have conquered nearly all of the known world at the time. Why would someone create a man that was a general and ruler of a nation? Regardless if he did or didn't exist it has no baring on my life or afterlife.