How large was Jesus following while alive?

[outhouse]

we have a traveling healer/teacher of judaism who preached for 1 to 3 years.

We know he possibly ended up with 12 followers who relied on the kindness of others to survive.

he may have not visited to many places twice, he was not the only teacher let alone the only traveling teacher.

#1 How large could his following be as he headed to the temple on his last passover?


he left a legacy still followed strongly today from a movement he started. Yet while he was alive not one historian or scholar scribed a single word about him, which was normal for many historical charactors and combine that with a very high illiteracy rate.

Most everything we know is based on oral tradition, id like to think he didnt have a huge following while alive since he traveled with 12 and even his home town wanted to throw him off a cliff.

#2 Did he need a large following to start a movement that changed the world???

 

[CynthiaCypher]

According to the synoptic gospels about 70 people

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

1 How large could his following be as he headed to the temple on his last passover?

Use Bayes.

Yet while he was alive not one historian or scholar scribed a single word about him, which was normal for many historical charactors and combine that with a very high illiteracy rate.

You're approaching this the wrong way. Everyone is agreed that illiteracy was high. Everyone is likewise agree that we have virtually no writings about 99.9999999999% of the people of the hellenistic world. For a teachers/leaders/preachers like John the baptist, Pythagoras, Apollonius of Tyna, the qumran teacher of righteousness, etc., we have next to nothing by was of information. In fact, there are only a handful of people from the invention of writing until well after Jesus who had as much written about them as early as he. And he was a peasant.

If we assume his following was quite small, then we run into a problem. He was executed in a fashion designed not only to be torture but humiliation. Shameful. Most of the time, when sect leaders die (and this is true of all Jesus' contemporaries) the sects die out as well. Yet a few years after his death we have a Paul (then Saul) persecuting followers of Jesus because he considered the movement powerful enough to represent a threat to Israel/Judaism. Around 30 years later, the "sect" was so large that even romans were differentiating it from the Jewish religion, and the emperor Nero blamed the fire on Jesus' followers. Luke spoke of many others also doing what he did (write down an account of Jesus) but we know of only two which may be before Luke's gospel. So how does a small upstart nobody with a little following gain such a following after a shameful execution? If there were so many other preachers and teachers, some of whom were also killed, then this isn't exactly the normal reaction. If Jesus was basically unknown, it's hard to see how his shameful death at the hands of the romans could dramatically increase the number of followers

#2 Did he need a large following to start a movement that changed the world???

Ahh...deontic modality. What could/should/would we do without you?

 

[McBell]

#2 Did he need a large following to start a movement that changed the world???

Obviously not.


How many would you say is needed to be considered a "large" following?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Obviously not.


How many would you say is needed to be considered a "large" following?

Sorites paradox. But now we have fuzzy numbers so we're good here.

 

[cablescavenger]

Use Bayes.



You're approaching this the wrong way. Everyone is agreed that illiteracy was high. Everyone is likewise agree that we have virtually no writings about 99.9999999999% of the people of the hellenistic world. For a teachers/leaders/preachers like John the baptist, Pythagoras, Apollonius of Tyna, the qumran teacher of righteousness, etc., we have next to nothing by was of information. In fact, there are only a handful of people from the invention of writing until well after Jesus who had as much written about them as early as he. And he was a peasant.

If we assume his following was quite small, then we run into a problem. He was executed in a fashion designed not only to be torture but humiliation. Shameful. Most of the time, when sect leaders die (and this is true of all Jesus' contemporaries) the sects die out as well. Yet a few years after his death we have a Paul (then Saul) persecuting followers of Jesus because he considered the movement powerful enough to represent a threat to Israel/Judaism. Around 30 years later, the "sect" was so large that even romans were differentiating it from the Jewish religion, and the emperor Nero blamed the fire on Jesus' followers. Luke spoke of many others also doing what he did (write down an account of Jesus) but we know of only two which may be before Luke's gospel. So how does a small upstart nobody with a little following gain such a following after a shameful execution? If there were so many other preachers and teachers, some of whom were also killed, then this isn't exactly the normal reaction. If Jesus was basically unknown, it's hard to see how his shameful death at the hands of the romans could dramatically increase the number of followers




Ahh...deontic modality. What could/should/would we do without you?

He was so well known that he had to be pointed out to the Romans by one of his friends when they arrested him.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

He was so well known that he had to be pointed out to the Romans by one of his friends when they arrested him.

Your point?

 

[glanis]

so guys sorry to tell you all but there is actually no evidence that jesus ever existed, no roman documents about his crucifiction, which they were anal about. there is only one reference to jesus christ during that time and that was proven to be a forgery. not one of the major historians even noted him. also the bible isnt fact they are a bunch of storys and not one of them is a first person account of jesus its and account of someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew jesus. also you have to argue with the fact that the bible was re-written soon after romes conversion to catholocism(thats actually also the time all other religions were made illegal in rome). then you have to deal with the fact that jesus story has been told many times before so you get the likes of horus, krishna and others which kinda make his story seem well fake.

yes i know someones gonna argue against what i said because of my lack or punctuation, correct grammah and well just general organisation to what was just written but at the moment i cant really be bothered.

 

[Madhuri]

then you have to deal with the fact that jesus story has been told many times before so you get the likes of horus, krishna and others which kinda make his story seem well fake.

That documentary, the one making this statement, is full of false information. When you investigate characters like Krishna, you will see that their story is nothing like that of Jesus.
I like to point this out because so many people fall for that Documentary without doing the research to verify its accuracy.

 

[glanis]

sorry but that documentry, whoever said i got it from a documentry, horus is exactly the same and predates jesus also krishna and buddah are similar its why some hindus believe in christ krishna, christ buddah and christ jesus. i know the link isnt too accurate, ok so i cant post links yet, type in storys similar to jesus first link gives examples only highlights though

 

[Madhuri]

sorry but that documentry, whoever said i got it from a documentry, horus is exactly the same and predates jesus also krishna and buddah are similar its why some hindus believe in christ krishna, christ buddah and christ jesus. i know the link isnt too accurate, ok so i cant post links yet, type in storys similar to jesus first link gives examples only highlights though

Because every time this argument is made, it is based off from the documentary Zeitgeist. My apologies if I was wrong about your source, but the Krishna-Jesus link is completely inaccurate. That doesn't mean the rest of your argument is lacking, but I warn against basing your arguments from this particular theory or source (if Zeitgeist is the source).

 

[glanis]

to be honest it is where i first heard it i didnt pay to much notice untill the religulous documentary came out and thats when i started to look into it myself, people who believe in zeitgeist are just as bad as the ones on the otherside, the guy made it to make a point about making judgments without all the facts, its completely biased. However i would recomened it to everyone it does make some valid points about the twin towers ect. also i found this clip about 2 crosses being found with in the rubble and how its miraculous, more planted material imo

 

[fallingblood]

so guys sorry to tell you all but there is actually no evidence that jesus ever existed, no roman documents about his crucifiction, which they were anal about. there is only one reference to jesus christ during that time and that was proven to be a forgery. not one of the major historians even noted him. also the bible isnt fact they are a bunch of storys and not one of them is a first person account of jesus its and account of someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew jesus. also you have to argue with the fact that the bible was re-written soon after romes conversion to catholocism(thats actually also the time all other religions were made illegal in rome). then you have to deal with the fact that jesus story has been told many times before so you get the likes of horus, krishna and others which kinda make his story seem well fake.

yes i know someones gonna argue against what i said because of my lack or punctuation, correct grammah and well just general organisation to what was just written but at the moment i cant really be bothered.

There are so many things wrong with this posts. First, Josephus is not a forgery. There are only a handful of "scholars" (some aren't actually scholars) who argue that, and incidentally, they aren't Biblical scholars. The vast majority agree that the passage contains interpolations, but has an original core. Here is my full argument for it: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

Jesus hardly resembles other "god-men." To get him to resemble a god men, people have to making things up, ignore the fact that other historical figures contains some of the same stories, and get extremely vague or simply misrepresent other characters. Here is my full argument: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/110449-jesus-mythical-god-men.html

There is no evidence that the Bible was rewritten.

As for no major historian mentioning him while he lived. So? Alexander the Great barely has anything mentioning him while he lived. We don't see major writings about him until quite some time later. Many of the Roman Emperors had little written about them until after their death. There are only a handful of Jews at all in Palestine who were mentioned (should we assume they didn't exist?). The problem is that you are ignoring the historical situation.

There is more than enough information that Jesus existed. Shortly after he died, Paul wrote about him, and Paul had access to the disciples of Jesus as well as the brother of Jesus.





As for how large was the following of Jesus. It was large enough to make Rome worried. It was large enough to continue after it's founder had died. It was large enough to pose a threat to Paul.

 

[cablescavenger]

so guys sorry to tell you all but there is actually no evidence that jesus ever existed, no roman documents about his crucifiction, which they were anal about. there is only one reference to jesus christ during that time and that was proven to be a forgery. not one of the major historians even noted him. also the bible isnt fact they are a bunch of storys and not one of them is a first person account of jesus its and account of someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew jesus. also you have to argue with the fact that the bible was re-written soon after romes conversion to catholocism(thats actually also the time all other religions were made illegal in rome). then you have to deal with the fact that jesus story has been told many times before so you get the likes of horus, krishna and others which kinda make his story seem well fake.

yes i know someones gonna argue against what i said because of my lack or punctuation, correct grammah and well just general organisation to what was just written but at the moment i cant really be bothered.

I am of the mind he didn't exist either. The son of God walks round and not one statue, painting or scrawling of his name done while he was supposed to be living.

 

[cablescavenger]

Your point?

Surely you can read between the line

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I am of the mind he didn't exist either. The son of God walks round and not one statue, painting or scrawling of his name done while he was supposed to be living.

Maybe he existed but he wasn't the son of god but just another crazy cult leader like David Koresh

 

[outhouse]

Maybe he existed but he wasn't the son of god but just another crazy cult leader like David Koresh

absolutely not

he was a everyday mans, man

A poor working man who took basically human refuge for friends and followers and started a movement that lasted today. HAS nothing to do with scum like D.K.

 

[outhouse]

I am of the mind he didn't exist either. The son of God walks round and not one statue, painting or scrawling of his name done while he was supposed to be living.

Theres no reason why a poor man, a traveling teacher of judaism who spoke in parables and metaphors who didnt like being financially oppressed by roman's

In a time when illiteracy was atrocious.


when we strip away biblical jesus from historical jesus, they are two different people.

maybe a question you should ask is did jesus make himself famous, or did the writers?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

absolutely not

he was a everyday mans, man

A poor working man who took basically human refuge for friends and followers and started a movement that lasted today. HAS nothing to do with scum like D.K.

Except for the part were he acts like a cult leader like David Koresh, you know tearing people away from their families like David Koresh did

 

[outhouse]

Except for the part were he acts like a cult leader like David Koresh, you know tearing people away from their families like David Koresh did

we dont know he did that, your putting to much weight into scripture that doesnt have any historicity.


he only had a few followers