Can someone who knows about Christian history please answer these questions.

[Anonymous]

Read "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" By Reza Aslan.

Aslan, who is from a Muslim family but became born again as a teenager, then abandoned evangelical Christianity has thought long and hard about the history of Christianity.

He argues that Jesus was as much a political leader as a spiritual one. Christ, according to Aslan, fought a two-pronged battle against Roman rule and the corruption of the Jewish rabbinical classes.

He also delves into the really interesting differences between Paul and the rest of the apostles.

I do take issue with the original proposition above "I know that before Christ people were looking at Judiasm as option."

Not enough space on the Internet to explain how naïve that statement is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" By Reza Aslan.

Aslan, who is from a Muslim family but became born again as a teenager, then abandoned evangelical Christianity has thought long and hard about the history of Christianity.

He argues that Jesus was as much a political leader as a spiritual one. Christ, according to Aslan, fought a two-pronged battle against Roman rule and the corruption of the Jewish rabbinical classes.

He also delves into the really interesting differences between Paul and the rest of the apostles.

I do take issue with the original proposition above "I know that before Christ people were looking at Judiasm as option."

Not enough space on the Internet to explain how naïve that statement is.

Around the Mediterranean, many people were adopting Jewish culture and practices, and some were converting to Judaism.

[Anonymous]

Pagan gods are mercurial -- you never know whom they will choose to bless or punish or when. Both Judaism and Christianity offered a simpler path to God's favor.

Christianity then offered a reward after death and a possible rebirth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" By Reza Aslan.

Aslan, who is from a Muslim family but became born again as a teenager, then abandoned evangelical Christianity has thought long and hard about the history of Christianity.

He argues that Jesus was as much a political leader as a spiritual one. Christ, according to Aslan, fought a two-pronged battle against Roman rule and the corruption of the Jewish rabbinical classes.

He also delves into the really interesting differences between Paul and the rest of the apostles.

I do take issue with the original proposition above "I know that before Christ people were looking at Judiasm as option."

Not enough space on the Internet to explain how naïve that statement is.

Lots of people take issue with the way Aslan reduces Christ to a political leader. It's possible to see some Christ's appeal in that, but for Christians the story is Christ's message. Once Constantine sanctioned Christianity in the 300s, the "rebel" argument loses meaning. Anyway, Jesus' message wasn't about the material world; it was about giving away your worldly goods and "rendering unto Caesar," not about seizing power for himself or his followers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The influence and impact of Jesus Christ. Early Christians followed his teachings. Read about Paul. He was a Roman. They believed. However, in Rome, in order to make Christianity more appealing to the pagans, rituals were added. And symbols.

So it had nothing to do with truth? It was a sales technique?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Paul want to spread this faith?

Paul had a conversion experience where he heard the voice of Jesus telling him to stop persecuting Christians and instead spread the faith. So that's what he did.

From the description, some historians say it was an epileptic fit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus' message appealed to a Roman audience because it did away with a lot of the less intuitive practices of other religions. So if you were wondering why God cared if you slaughtered a goat in his name, or why he cared what you ate, Jesus said, you're right, God doesn't care, let's strip it down to the basics: God wants you to love each other, love him, and love your enemy. Well, obviously there's more, like doing away with eye-for-eye justice. But this basic message had appeal outside of tribal identities and could appeal to your somewhat more cosmopolitan centurion.

Initially the Romans weren't threatened by Jesus--you can see this in the crucifixion accounts. As his movement grew, they did indeed become threatened by what they saw as, basically, an indigenous revolt, even if it was a more pacifist (turn the other cheek, render unto Caesar) challenge. As the message gained more followers, the Romans started to take it as a serious threat and the persecutions began.

Should add that I was taught that Jesus' message had broader appeal because it developed in a context of urbane Roman culture, in cities that were along trade routes where ideas were exchanged, as opposed to alternatives that were more tribal in identity.

are you saying it was more sociological and not simply the word of god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The apostles who were the first to spread Christianity -- Peter, Nathaniel, James, etc. (except John) -- were all martyred. These were the men who know Jesus, who served with Him for three years. They died rather than deny that Jesus was the resurrected Christ, God in the flesh. They would have known whether they were spreading a fable or not. Who would knowingly die for a lie?

The early Christian church was greatly persecuted. A great many of the early Christians were Jews who were despised by the rest of the Jewish people. They were hunted and persecuted by Jewish leaders and Romans alike. Yet they believed, followed and spread their faith regardless.

Why did Christianity spread and flourish in the early decades? Because Jesus Christ is the Messiah, God come to earth to die for our sins and rise again.

I went to RCIA and was baptized at 36. One of my greatest interests is the historical Jesus and also examining the differences between Christian churches. I agree with the first paragraph. The martyrs had nothing to gain from spreading the word of Jesus, yet they did. Why would they have done this unless they truly understood who he was and what he stood for?

It certainly sounds like RICA had a truly indoctrinating effect on you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The apostles who were the first to spread Christianity -- Peter, Nathaniel, James, etc. (except John) -- were all martyred. These were the men who know Jesus, who served with Him for three years. They died rather than deny that Jesus was the resurrected Christ, God in the flesh. They would have known whether they were spreading a fable or not. Who would knowingly die for a lie?

The early Christian church was greatly persecuted. A great many of the early Christians were Jews who were despised by the rest of the Jewish people. They were hunted and persecuted by Jewish leaders and Romans alike. Yet they believed, followed and spread their faith regardless.

Why did Christianity spread and flourish in the early decades? Because Jesus Christ is the Messiah, God come to earth to die for our sins and rise again.

I went to RCIA and was baptized at 36. One of my greatest interests is the historical Jesus and also examining the differences between Christian churches. I agree with the first paragraph. The martyrs had nothing to gain from spreading the word of Jesus, yet they did. Why would they have done this unless they truly understood who he was and what he stood for?

I appreciate the sentiment in these posts and I would like for you to step back and see that people of other religions have also died for their faith. Hunted down and persecuted for their faith. The faith they know, believe and would rather die than convert.

Please extend your worldview to see that just because people died for believing in Christianity, people have also died for being Jewish, for being Hindu, for being Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, and any form of "pagan".

Because some apostles may have rather died than not believe in Christianity does not make it the "one true" religion. And the rising from the dead story is highly debatable and even many Christians believe this be metaphorical.

I wish people that believe in exclusionary religions could actually see that all the people of the world and their varying faiths have more in common than they do different. If you seek out these commonalities and be more inclusive you would feel God (in whichever name you choose) in your heart even stronger because that is the of core of religion- love and grace- not trying to one up the next religion and harvest the most souls to claim as your own.

Bravo! well said -- if only more people could accept this. With or without religion, love and grace are what count inlife, irrespective of what comes after(or not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The apostles who were the first to spread Christianity -- Peter, Nathaniel, James, etc. (except John) -- were all martyred. These were the men who know Jesus, who served with Him for three years. They died rather than deny that Jesus was the resurrected Christ, God in the flesh. They would have known whether they were spreading a fable or not. Who would knowingly die for a lie?

The early Christian church was greatly persecuted. A great many of the early Christians were Jews who were despised by the rest of the Jewish people. They were hunted and persecuted by Jewish leaders and Romans alike. Yet they believed, followed and spread their faith regardless.

Why did Christianity spread and flourish in the early decades? Because Jesus Christ is the Messiah, God come to earth to die for our sins and rise again.

I went to RCIA and was baptized at 36. One of my greatest interests is the historical Jesus and also examining the differences between Christian churches. I agree with the first paragraph. The martyrs had nothing to gain from spreading the word of Jesus, yet they did. Why would they have done this unless they truly understood who he was and what he stood for?

I appreciate the sentiment in these posts and I would like for you to step back and see that people of other religions have also died for their faith. Hunted down and persecuted for their faith. The faith they know, believe and would rather die than convert.

Please extend your worldview to see that just because people died for believing in Christianity, people have also died for being Jewish, for being Hindu, for being Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, and any form of "pagan".

Because some apostles may have rather died than not believe in Christianity does not make it the "one true" religion. And the rising from the dead story is highly debatable and even many Christians believe this be metaphorical.

I wish people that believe in exclusionary religions could actually see that all the people of the world and their varying faiths have more in common than they do different. If you seek out these commonalities and be more inclusive you would feel God (in whichever name you choose) in your heart even stronger because that is the of core of religion- love and grace- not trying to one up the next religion and harvest the most souls to claim as your own.

Yes, of course, people of all faiths have been persecuted and died for their faiths. It must take an unfathomable amount of courage to die for your faith. But everyone has done so died for their faith, not their actual first-hand, experiential, empirical knowledge.

The difference with Christ's disciples is that they preached that He was God and that He rose from the dead. If that were a story that they had made up, then they would have KNOWN that it was FALSE. They walked with Christ for three years. They claimed experiential, first-hand observational knowledge of His miracles, including His resurrection from the dead and ascension to Heaven. If these things weren't true, they would have known they were spreading falsehoods. It is much harder to believe they would have allowed themselves to be killed for something they knew not to be true, rather than something that people later of other faiths only believed from conviction.

Harder, but still possible. Sorry, but it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that Christianity is indeed the one true religion. It also sounds like this is something you learned in Sunday School or adult religion class to convince you that you had chosen wisely and would not stray from Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The apostles who were the first to spread Christianity -- Peter, Nathaniel, James, etc. (except John) -- were all martyred. These were the men who know Jesus, who served with Him for three years. They died rather than deny that Jesus was the resurrected Christ, God in the flesh. They would have known whether they were spreading a fable or not. Who would knowingly die for a lie?

The early Christian church was greatly persecuted. A great many of the early Christians were Jews who were despised by the rest of the Jewish people. They were hunted and persecuted by Jewish leaders and Romans alike. Yet they believed, followed and spread their faith regardless.

Why did Christianity spread and flourish in the early decades? Because Jesus Christ is the Messiah, God come to earth to die for our sins and rise again.

I went to RCIA and was baptized at 36. One of my greatest interests is the historical Jesus and also examining the differences between Christian churches. I agree with the first paragraph. The martyrs had nothing to gain from spreading the word of Jesus, yet they did. Why would they have done this unless they truly understood who he was and what he stood for?

I appreciate the sentiment in these posts and I would like for you to step back and see that people of other religions have also died for their faith. Hunted down and persecuted for their faith. The faith they know, believe and would rather die than convert.

Please extend your worldview to see that just because people died for believing in Christianity, people have also died for being Jewish, for being Hindu, for being Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, and any form of "pagan".

Because some apostles may have rather died than not believe in Christianity does not make it the "one true" religion. And the rising from the dead story is highly debatable and even many Christians believe this be metaphorical.

I wish people that believe in exclusionary religions could actually see that all the people of the world and their varying faiths have more in common than they do different. If you seek out these commonalities and be more inclusive you would feel God (in whichever name you choose) in your heart even stronger because that is the of core of religion- love and grace- not trying to one up the next religion and harvest the most souls to claim as your own.

Yes, of course, people of all faiths have been persecuted and died for their faiths. It must take an unfathomable amount of courage to die for your faith. But everyone has done so died for their faith, not their actual first-hand, experiential, empirical knowledge.

The difference with Christ's disciples is that they preached that He was God and that He rose from the dead. If that were a story that they had made up, then they would have KNOWN that it was FALSE. They walked with Christ for three years. They claimed experiential, first-hand observational knowledge of His miracles, including His resurrection from the dead and ascension to Heaven. If these things weren't true, they would have known they were spreading falsehoods. It is much harder to believe they would have allowed themselves to be killed for something they knew not to be true, rather than something that people later of other faiths only believed from conviction.

Sounds like Sunday School proselytizing, or Adult Christian education -- not academic study, which focuses on evidence, not encouragement to believe.

[Anonymous]

Lamb of God, you take away the Sins of the World...
Pretty much this, and its amazing and beautiful (though Im a believer in there are many paths to the top of the Mountain).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The apostles who were the first to spread Christianity -- Peter, Nathaniel, James, etc. (except John) -- were all martyred. These were the men who know Jesus, who served with Him for three years. They died rather than deny that Jesus was the resurrected Christ, God in the flesh. They would have known whether they were spreading a fable or not. Who would knowingly die for a lie?

The early Christian church was greatly persecuted. A great many of the early Christians were Jews who were despised by the rest of the Jewish people. They were hunted and persecuted by Jewish leaders and Romans alike. Yet they believed, followed and spread their faith regardless.

Why did Christianity spread and flourish in the early decades? Because Jesus Christ is the Messiah, God come to earth to die for our sins and rise again.

I went to RCIA and was baptized at 36. One of my greatest interests is the historical Jesus and also examining the differences between Christian churches. I agree with the first paragraph. The martyrs had nothing to gain from spreading the word of Jesus, yet they did. Why would they have done this unless they truly understood who he was and what he stood for?

I appreciate the sentiment in these posts and I would like for you to step back and see that people of other religions have also died for their faith. Hunted down and persecuted for their faith. The faith they know, believe and would rather die than convert.

Please extend your worldview to see that just because people died for believing in Christianity, people have also died for being Jewish, for being Hindu, for being Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, and any form of "pagan".

Because some apostles may have rather died than not believe in Christianity does not make it the "one true" religion. And the rising from the dead story is highly debatable and even many Christians believe this be metaphorical.

I wish people that believe in exclusionary religions could actually see that all the people of the world and their varying faiths have more in common than they do different. If you seek out these commonalities and be more inclusive you would feel God (in whichever name you choose) in your heart even stronger because that is the of core of religion- love and grace- not trying to one up the next religion and harvest the most souls to claim as your own.

Your bias is showing. You claim to be tolerant, but antagonistic comments such as "harvest the most souls to claim as your own" does nothing to back that up. There isn't a Christian alive who tries to do that. What we DO do is try to help people see the divinity of Christ and their need for a Savior -- just as we needed to see it -- because we love them, because we believe what we read of Christ's testimony in the Bible. You may not believe it, but to derisively characterize someone's desire to reach others with the implications of their faith is way off the mark.

Because otherwise, they go to HELL for eternity -- at least that's what some Christians believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The apostles who were the first to spread Christianity -- Peter, Nathaniel, James, etc. (except John) -- were all martyred. These were the men who know Jesus, who served with Him for three years. They died rather than deny that Jesus was the resurrected Christ, God in the flesh. They would have known whether they were spreading a fable or not. Who would knowingly die for a lie?

The early Christian church was greatly persecuted. A great many of the early Christians were Jews who were despised by the rest of the Jewish people. They were hunted and persecuted by Jewish leaders and Romans alike. Yet they believed, followed and spread their faith regardless.

Why did Christianity spread and flourish in the early decades? Because Jesus Christ is the Messiah, God come to earth to die for our sins and rise again.

I went to RCIA and was baptized at 36. One of my greatest interests is the historical Jesus and also examining the differences between Christian churches. I agree with the first paragraph. The martyrs had nothing to gain from spreading the word of Jesus, yet they did. Why would they have done this unless they truly understood who he was and what he stood for?

I appreciate the sentiment in these posts and I would like for you to step back and see that people of other religions have also died for their faith. Hunted down and persecuted for their faith. The faith they know, believe and would rather die than convert.

Please extend your worldview to see that just because people died for believing in Christianity, people have also died for being Jewish, for being Hindu, for being Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, and any form of "pagan".

Because some apostles may have rather died than not believe in Christianity does not make it the "one true" religion. And the rising from the dead story is highly debatable and even many Christians believe this be metaphorical.

I wish people that believe in exclusionary religions could actually see that all the people of the world and their varying faiths have more in common than they do different. If you seek out these commonalities and be more inclusive you would feel God (in whichever name you choose) in your heart even stronger because that is the of core of religion- love and grace- not trying to one up the next religion and harvest the most souls to claim as your own.

Yes, of course, people of all faiths have been persecuted and died for their faiths. It must take an unfathomable amount of courage to die for your faith. But everyone has done so died for their faith, not their actual first-hand, experiential, empirical knowledge.

The difference with Christ's disciples is that they preached that He was God and that He rose from the dead. If that were a story that they had made up, then they would have KNOWN that it was FALSE. They walked with Christ for three years. They claimed experiential, first-hand observational knowledge of His miracles, including His resurrection from the dead and ascension to Heaven. If these things weren't true, they would have known they were spreading falsehoods. It is much harder to believe they would have allowed themselves to be killed for something they knew not to be true, rather than something that people later of other faiths only believed from conviction.

People that walked with Islam's Mohammed died for him. They went to war for him and gave their daughters away for him. Why would they do this if he were not speaking God's truth?

People that walked with Sikhism's Guru Nanak also died for him. They refused to convert to Islam and died for the faith that Guru Nanak had imparted.

Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on this. I know it's what you're taught to believe but at some point you need to be able to be use critical thinking to discern that it's really a common theme across religions.

You again miss the point. Mohammad's followers do not claim that he rose from the dead. Neither do Guru Nanak's followers. They are espousing his teachings, which they believe to their core, but they are not dying for something they KNOW empirically to be false, as Christ's disciples would had to have done if they had made up the story to gain a following.

I don't know how to restate this, but I'll try one more time.

"I believe what Mohammad said about God." Fine, that's stating your faith.
"I believe Guru Nanak died for me and trust his teachings." Fine, that's also stating your faith.
"I saw Christ after he rose from the dead. He was dead, now He is alive." That's stating a fact. If you know it's not a fact, that's pretty stupid to die for it.

Not really, because the deal is, if you die with a firm belief that Jesus is your savior, you'll have eternal life. This is a great deal -- if you can bring yourself to believe it.

The converse, is that if you don't believe it, you suffer eternally in hell. Quite the easy choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lamb of God, you take away the Sins of the World...
Pretty much this, and its amazing and beautiful (though Im a believer in there are many paths to the top of the Mountain).

Memorized in Sunday school. A nice and simple thought.