CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I say it does and the majority of scholars agree with me. Why? The evidence given to us by historical criteria like dissimilarity
So did David Koresh
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How large was Jesus following while alive?
- Thread starter outhouse
- Start date
I say it does and the majority of scholars agree with me. Why? The evidence given to us by historical criteria like dissimilarity
So did David Koresh
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
It was not his life that created the following but his death. It's doubtful Christianity would exist as anything more than an obscure Jewish sect if he hadn't been crucified.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Sort of like James Dean who didn't achieve super-stardom until after he died
outhouse
Atheistically
BUT
do you think the crucifiction made him famous? or did paul make him famous?
what percentage??
outhouse
Atheistically
yes, sure, why not. add that and "timing" which is key
were talking about a man who who was fighting the govenment, not just the roman government, but the crooked jewish government as well.
Gentiles at that time needed a decent religion besided the other popular myths, and after the fall of the temple and there was a need for a new religion and one that opened up yahweh to gentiles had alot to do with it. there is more to the story then the death of a teacher
we cant discount what paul did to popularize it either, but without timing. well who knows
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Ehrman, Vermes, Crossan, Pagels, Brown, Schweitzer, Kung, and many many more
Ironic isn't it? That's the same number of followers Jesus had when he died
it wasn't that big in his time, that's what peeved him off.
Where is Jesus now?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Your local library
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
12 apostles, 70 disciples...read your Bible.[/quote]
Him. It bothered him that the Pharisees were more successful than he was, that's why he attacked them[/quote]
But the most famous man who met an ignoble end on a Roman cross
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, the crucifiction obviously made him famous but Paul certainly took it to the next level. He was kind of like an agent or promoter to the Rockstar that was Jesus.
Percentages are tough. The crucifiction is important because it is what brought him to the attention of so many, Paul included. But it was Paul who stripped off the need to become Jewish, making the religion acceptable to Gentiles. Very hard to say which of these two things was more instrumental in the success of Christianity.
outhouse
Atheistically
I agree, and its why I was asking for your opinion. im not sure.
The legend had circulated for what over 10 years before paul grabbed it.
So it looks like the disciples modified the legend and capitolized on the timing and promoted biblical jesus to the point it had filled the gap the disciples had seen.
I mean why esle wouls so many jews bail from a religion if t wasnt for the jewish government being corrupt.
people in huge numbers jumped ship because jesus brought to light with his death, a very corrupt religion.
It was either stay loyal to a roman infected religion, or start fresh with one that was open to everyone.
outhouse
Atheistically
show me where that has historicity
there is a difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus
he attacted them if he did because they were corrupt, thieves so to speak for the romans.
we all die
that man really lived
he started a group that fought a corrupt governement more so then a religious cult.
thousands of jews met their death on a cross.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
What Christianity was to become was totally up in the air for the first 3 centuries. It could have been left as a Jewish sect, (Ebionites), or totally left Judaism, (Marcionism) declaring the Christian God as different than the Jewish one. Paul seems to have been a compromise and it is unlikely that any other form of Christianity would have stood the test of time.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Schweitzer and Kung?
Schweitzer is dead, and Kung is old. So they don't count. I'm just kidding. To add to that list, Borg, Sanders, Meiers, Wright, and more.
That just made me laugh.
outhouse
Atheistically
correct but look at the bigger picture, the movement had to gain its own popularity for paul to want to run with it.
jesus looked at the temple and governement as corrupt since romans infected the jewish religion. that is exactly why he started his own movement away from judaism that he viewed as pure and not corrupt.
it took off on its own, so much that 10 years later its popular enough paul grabs it, see's a openeing that he can capitolize on, does a 180 and runs with it.
outhouse
Atheistically
Schweitzer and Kung?
I'm just kidding. To add to that list, Borg, Sanders, Meiers, Wright, and more.
That just made me laugh.
so you agree that jesus pulled men away from their families like a cult leader :clap
your credibility is falling fast
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Popularity or notoriety? Christianty brought attention to itself due to its refusal to acknowledge local deities which caused the Romans to blame the Christians for any bad luck they may experience. Since the Romans believed that the Gods demanded attention and the Christians refused to give it, all bad things became the fault of the Christians. A bad crop, a flood, a drought, all caused by the Christians not appeasing the local deities. The solution, lions of course. So Paul may have seen an opportunity in this new religion and jumped on it. Or he may have eaten the wrong mushrooms on his pizza and had a chat with Jesus. We'll never know.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So just about every single serious scholar there is. Heck even Richard Dawkins admits that Jesus was historicalSchweitzer and Kung?
I'm just kidding. To add to that list, Borg, Sanders, Meiers, Wright, and more.
I don't know why people think hyperlinks provide more proof than books