Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
He was born there! Pity he was proved to be a fraud!
-
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!
Why is Jesus so famous? (Challenge to atheists)
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
I think you're taking liberties with the term "famous." Christianity was a fringe underground cult.
Edit: but yes, Constantine. The reason that you worship Jesus and not, say, Simon Bar Kokhba (another purported messiah around thevsame time) is because Jesus's followers managed to convert a Roman emperor and Bar Kokhba's didn't.
You mean after ~2000 years of Christians purging "paganism" from their societies and histories? Probably pretty slim.
Nothing in the spread of the Christ myth requires that any of his supposed miracles actually happened.
... and the way that the miracle claims start off small in the oldest gospel (Mark) and get grandiose in the newest gospel (John) suggests that many of Jesus's supposed miracles aren't just unsupported, but clearly false.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Some points to bear in mind, for those attributing Jesus of Nazareth’s popularity to Constantine The Great;
The Roman Empire was already in decline, especially in the West, when the Emperor Constantine converted. His capital, which bore his name for over 1000 years, wasn’t even in Rome.
Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire during Constantine’s lifetime. There is some debate as to the sincerity of Constantine’s conversion, and whether he may have continued backing several religious horses at the same time; which would have been standard Roman practice.
Attributing Jesus’ fame to Rome’s declining power does nothing to explain why an obscure spiritual teacher of humble birth had such an impact on the world that, 3 centuries after his death, an Emperor converted to a religion based on his teachings.
The Roman Empire was already in decline, especially in the West, when the Emperor Constantine converted. His capital, which bore his name for over 1000 years, wasn’t even in Rome.
Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire during Constantine’s lifetime. There is some debate as to the sincerity of Constantine’s conversion, and whether he may have continued backing several religious horses at the same time; which would have been standard Roman practice.
Attributing Jesus’ fame to Rome’s declining power does nothing to explain why an obscure spiritual teacher of humble birth had such an impact on the world that, 3 centuries after his death, an Emperor converted to a religion based on his teachings.
It's not as if ordinary (actual) people have not become famous. Sparticus became legendary after his exploits leading a slave rebellion.
Harriet Tubman is famous for her work to help escaped slaved in 1850's America.
Sgt. Alvin York, a poor Tennessee boy, became hugely famous after his actions in WW1.
Audie Murphy, a poor Texas boy, became hugely famous after his exploits in WW2.
George Floyd has become very famous after being murdered by police officers.
Mickey Mouse is famous.
There are countless others of ordinary people, and even imaginary characters, that become famous over time due to communication of the stories about them. Pretty typical for social beings. Is it magic?
Harriet Tubman is famous for her work to help escaped slaved in 1850's America.
Sgt. Alvin York, a poor Tennessee boy, became hugely famous after his actions in WW1.
Audie Murphy, a poor Texas boy, became hugely famous after his exploits in WW2.
George Floyd has become very famous after being murdered by police officers.
Mickey Mouse is famous.
There are countless others of ordinary people, and even imaginary characters, that become famous over time due to communication of the stories about them. Pretty typical for social beings. Is it magic?
To some extent, yes, but essentially among the lower classes, like Constantine's mom.
We don't even know for sure if there was an historical Jesus at all; but if there was, the only credible model is Mark's ordinary Jew adopted (after his baptism) by God. Matthew's and Luke's inseminated virgin nonsense and Paul's and John's demiurge are well beyond belief.
And the number of authenticated miracles hasn't changed since the 1st century ─ it's still zero. No, it's the stories that seem to have got the fans in.
I am mystified why his influences isn't more powerful among conservative Christians. They behave as if they are anti-Christs, as if what Jesus taught was the wrong message and path.
Heck - even the sacred chickens at the Battle of Drepana are still famous for their purported miracle (and martyrdom) and they predate leroy's messiah by several centuries.
@leroy - what does the logic in your OP say about the sacred chickens? I mean, if their powers weren't real, we wouldn't know about them today, right?
And look how famous chicken is, from the Tandoori ovens of India to Kentucky frying pans to the pot pies of England. Could any of that happened without the personal sacrifice of sacred chickens?
What a myopic view. Given the population of the planet as a whole at that time, say 150 years after Jesus's death, by what metric could Jesus have been described as popular?
As for fake miracles being accepted more readily in the ancient world, it would seem quite logical given their relative ignorance to today, in the understanding how the world actually works.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No, it's the most documented claim of any religion.
Also, there's the whole problem of communication in the ancient world.
It's not like video recordings or photos existed in the first century. Anyone who wasn't a direct eyewitness to an event (or a purported event) would have had to rely on hearsay to decide what really happened.
... which touches on another aspect of early Christianity that points to it being false: in general, they had better success winning converts far away from where Jesus supposedly performed his miracles than they did nearby.
(Though to be fair, there's a confounding variable in this: the early Christians also had better success with gentiles than with Jews, and the Jews were mostly in the area where Jesus supposedly performed his miracles. It's hard to say how much of the lack of success of Christians converting Jews was related to them not believing the miracle claims and how much was related to them not accepting their twisting of Jewish messiah beliefs)
If the claims of Christianity were true, then there would be plenty of other people who died and returned from the dead. A few examples:
Raising of Jairus' daughter - Wikipedia
Raising of the son of the widow of Nain - Wikipedia
Lazarus of Bethany - Wikipedia
Matthew 27:53 - Wikipedia
Should I take it that you reject the Gospel story? If so, why do you accept it when it talks about Jesus's death and resurrection?
No, no documented first hand references dating to the life of Jesus. All the gospels date much later than the life of Jesus. All other known historical sources dating to the time o Jesus lived do not even record the existence of JEsus Christ.
Like all miraculous events in the different ancient religions there is not documented evidence.
Even the non-miraculous stuff.
Take the Gospel story of Herod's slaughter of the innocents: there's nothing in the historical record about this actually happening... despite the fact that we have Josephus chronicling this period and calling out Herod for all the misdeeds that he can.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
No, they all had something to offer the world, in one way or another.
The ones you mention mostly had a lot more media exposure than Yeshua Ha Nosri though.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
In full view of an entire cities population? And those only prove Jesus has power.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Any other history book would be accepted 300 year later, some of the gospels were written only 50 years later.
Thanks for bringing these points up. It is a major oversimplification to suggest that it was just that one emperor responsible for the enormous popularity of Christianity. If we were to be doubtful of the sincerity of Constantine's conversion experience, and see him through the lens of a political opportunist, or both, he would have done so because Christianity was already so popular that it was advantageous for him to do so. He didn't make it popular. It already was, so much so that an emperor of Rome could see it as a major resource to be exploited.
Christianity was a social movement. They had established many social programs, where the state did nothing for people. So it became quite popular with everyone for that reason. There is a great PBS special I would highly recommend watching in the 2 part series. They get into what I'm mentioning here in a lot more detail.
I love the name of this program: From Jesus to Christ. It follows the possible understandings we can have from history of this man and his followers, how it blossomed from a teacher Jesus, to him becoming the Christ. So "from Jesus to Christ" is exactly the trajectory it follows, culminating with it permeating Rome and ending up being a dominant world religion. Fascinating and highly informative through the modern historical and critical research lens.
From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS
I think I'm going to have to watch it all again too now. It's been a while.
It's not as if media exposure means the public attach to a story. Extraordinary stories can really appeal to people. Let's note that extraordinary doesn't mean true or realistic. Look at all the fables and legends that were popular in ancient times. The illiad was popular with popular characters. Word got around back then through other means.
Do you think that Jesus was resurrected in full view of an entire city's population?
But yes: in the last example, dead saints rose from their tombs, entered the city, and appeared before many (if we believe the Bible account, anyway).
I take this as your way of saying "I was wrong. Jesus isn't the only person who came back from the dead."
And they prove nothing. I didn't point out these stories to say that they actually happened; I pointed them out to call attention to the fact that you were arguing against parts of the story that you were trying to argue is true.