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

[Anonymous]

When missionaries began traveling around the world to spread the word of Christ, why did those people abandon their gods? In many countries you were executed for being Christian, yet why was it so appealing? My theory is that the poor had to work the lands of their masters and had no pleasures or means to move up in their present world. If you were born poor, you remain poor and so does the rest of your family. So when Christians promised a paradise in heaven, this was more appealing than living their hell on earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You missed my intention with that statement. I was saying the apostles would have known whether they were lying about Christ rising from the dead and that if they were lying, then it wouldn't have made sense to die for a known lie. So I was saying the same thing you were, which is the apostles knew Christ was God in human flesh and rose from the dead.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Why not try a little thought experiment?

Think of something you KNOW is a lie. Now think about going around telling everyone this thing you know not to be true, even though you'll get no earthly profit from it (and no heavenly profit either because you KNOW it's not true) and even though you will be harassed, ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned. Now imagine someone threatens to kill you unless you deny this bellef that you know is not true.

This is what you have to believe the apostles to have done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Many historians say the same of Mohammed, that he was an epileptic. Your point? Many others have faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You missed my intention with that statement. I was saying the apostles would have known whether they were lying about Christ rising from the dead and that if they were lying, then it wouldn't have made sense to die for a known lie. So I was saying the same thing you were, which is the apostles knew Christ was God in human flesh and rose from the dead.

I might have missed your point but I'm not saying "the apostles knew Christ was God in human flesh and rose from the dead" as you did. I think the rising from the dead bit was a story from the beginning -- a very appealing one.

[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.

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.

Why not try a little thought experiment?

Think of something you KNOW is a lie. Now think about going around telling everyone this thing you know not to be true, even though you'll get no earthly profit from it (and no heavenly profit either because you KNOW it's not true) and even though you will be harassed, ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned. Now imagine someone threatens to kill you unless you deny this bellef that you know is not true.

This is what you have to believe the apostles to have done.

Try another thought experiment: the whole story of the apostles is just that -- a story. There is no historical evidence that there were apostles or that they died in the way you say they did. All we know for sure is that there was a guy we call Paul who spread the story of Jesus and his apostles far and wide and that eventually Constantine, ruler of Rome, made it the state religion and spread the religion and its stories throughout Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Many historians say the same of Mohammed, that he was an epileptic. Your point? Many others have faith.

Your point? being epileptic or not doesn't account for faith or non-faith. It can account for hearing voices, however. Some people may think it's the voice of God, others just think it's hearing things that aren't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When missionaries began traveling around the world to spread the word of Christ, why did those people abandon their gods? In many countries you were executed for being Christian, yet why was it so appealing? My theory is that the poor had to work the lands of their masters and had no pleasures or means to move up in their present world. If you were born poor, you remain poor and so does the rest of your family. So when Christians promised a paradise in heaven, this was more appealing than living their hell on earth.

And it worked out well for the masters too -- they could mistreat their servants knowing they wouldn't bother to try to make their lives better here on earth, when they had an eternity of bliss waiting for them.

Sort of what the radical muslim suicide bombers do.

[Anonymous]

Judaism only accepted members who were born into the faith and the same was true of many other religions. Christianity took all comers and didn't have a lot of difficult or expensive laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not try a little thought experiment?

Think of something you KNOW is a lie. Now think about going around telling everyone this thing you know not to be true, even though you'll get no earthly profit from it (and no heavenly profit either because you KNOW it's not true) and even though you will be harassed, ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned. Now imagine someone threatens to kill you unless you deny this bellef that you know is not true.

This is what you have to believe the apostles to have done.

Try another thought experiment: the whole story of the apostles is just that -- a story. There is no historical evidence that there were apostles or that they died in the way you say they did. All we know for sure is that there was a guy we call Paul who spread the story of Jesus and his apostles far and wide and that eventually Constantine, ruler of Rome, made it the state religion and spread the religion and its stories throughout Europe.

Try this historical experiment. According to your theory, somebody "made up" Christianity between 100 and 330 AD, complete with Jesus' bio and a posse of apostles.

Not just that, they made up a story about a guy who would have seemed to have failed instead of succeeded, getting crucified instead of a fairy tale ending along the lines of "and then God took him up to heaven". A story about foreigners playing valuable roles (the Good Samaritan). A story where even women of the time playing key roles (the Marys, Martha, and the women who discovered Jesus' empty tomb.

Any idea who made all that up? Or how a story about a guy who was crucified quickly amassed so many followers that it took over the Roman Empure just a few hundred years later?

See how silly your theory sounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not try a little thought experiment?

Think of something you KNOW is a lie. Now think about going around telling everyone this thing you know not to be true, even though you'll get no earthly profit from it (and no heavenly profit either because you KNOW it's not true) and even though you will be harassed, ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned. Now imagine someone threatens to kill you unless you deny this bellef that you know is not true.

This is what you have to believe the apostles to have done.

Try another thought experiment: the whole story of the apostles is just that -- a story. There is no historical evidence that there were apostles or that they died in the way you say they did. All we know for sure is that there was a guy we call Paul who spread the story of Jesus and his apostles far and wide and that eventually Constantine, ruler of Rome, made it the state religion and spread the religion and its stories throughout Europe.

Try this historical experiment. According to your theory, somebody "made up" Christianity between 100 and 330 AD, complete with Jesus' bio and a posse of apostles.

Not just that, they made up a story about a guy who would have seemed to have failed instead of succeeded, getting crucified instead of a fairy tale ending along the lines of "and then God took him up to heaven". A story about foreigners playing valuable roles (the Good Samaritan). A story where even women of the time playing key roles (the Marys, Martha, and the women who discovered Jesus' empty tomb.

Any idea who made all that up? Or how a story about a guy who was crucified quickly amassed so many followers that it took over the Roman Empure just a few hundred years later?

See how silly your theory sounds?

There's nothing odd or untoward about making up things. Telling stories is part of what makes us human. We've been doing it since the beginning of time. We also retell the same stories over the centuries and across cultures, including stories of virgin births, resurrections and people of humble birth becoming mighty rulers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not try a little thought experiment?

Think of something you KNOW is a lie. Now think about going around telling everyone this thing you know not to be true, even though you'll get no earthly profit from it (and no heavenly profit either because you KNOW it's not true) and even though you will be harassed, ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned. Now imagine someone threatens to kill you unless you deny this bellef that you know is not true.

This is what you have to believe the apostles to have done.

Try another thought experiment: the whole story of the apostles is just that -- a story. There is no historical evidence that there were apostles or that they died in the way you say they did. All we know for sure is that there was a guy we call Paul who spread the story of Jesus and his apostles far and wide and that eventually Constantine, ruler of Rome, made it the state religion and spread the religion and its stories throughout Europe.

Try this historical experiment. According to your theory, somebody "made up" Christianity between 100 and 330 AD, complete with Jesus' bio and a posse of apostles.

Not just that, they made up a story about a guy who would have seemed to have failed instead of succeeded, getting crucified instead of a fairy tale ending along the lines of "and then God took him up to heaven". A story about foreigners playing valuable roles (the Good Samaritan). A story where even women of the time playing key roles (the Marys, Martha, and the women who discovered Jesus' empty tomb.

Any idea who made all that up? Or how a story about a guy who was crucified quickly amassed so many followers that it took over the Roman Empure just a few hundred years later?

See how silly your theory sounds?

There's nothing odd or untoward about making up things. Telling stories is part of what makes us human. We've been doing it since the beginning of time. We also retell the same stories over the centuries and across cultures, including stories of virgin births, resurrections and people of humble birth becoming mighty rulers.

Groundhog alert.

[Anonymous]

For OP or others who don't frequent the religion board regularly, "groundhog" is a name some posters give to anyone who points out the mythical origins of Christianity and other ancient religions.

Some are atheists, some are non-fundamentalist Christians and there even a minister who posts here who has studied religion academically. Many people of faith don't let the mythical background of their religion interfere with their beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Without Constantine, Christianity might not exist today. He converted to Christianity back when being Roman Emperor really meant something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not try a little thought experiment?

Think of something you KNOW is a lie. Now think about going around telling everyone this thing you know not to be true, even though you'll get no earthly profit from it (and no heavenly profit either because you KNOW it's not true) and even though you will be harassed, ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned. Now imagine someone threatens to kill you unless you deny this bellef that you know is not true.

This is what you have to believe the apostles to have done.

Try another thought experiment: the whole story of the apostles is just that -- a story. There is no historical evidence that there were apostles or that they died in the way you say they did. All we know for sure is that there was a guy we call Paul who spread the story of Jesus and his apostles far and wide and that eventually Constantine, ruler of Rome, made it the state religion and spread the religion and its stories throughout Europe.

Try this historical experiment. According to your theory, somebody "made up" Christianity between 100 and 330 AD, complete with Jesus' bio and a posse of apostles.

Not just that, they made up a story about a guy who would have seemed to have failed instead of succeeded, getting crucified instead of a fairy tale ending along the lines of "and then God took him up to heaven". A story about foreigners playing valuable roles (the Good Samaritan). A story where even women of the time playing key roles (the Marys, Martha, and the women who discovered Jesus' empty tomb.

Any idea who made all that up? Or how a story about a guy who was crucified quickly amassed so many followers that it took over the Roman Empure just a few hundred years later?

See how silly your theory sounds?

There's nothing odd or untoward about making up things. Telling stories is part of what makes us human. We've been doing it since the beginning of time. We also retell the same stories over the centuries and across cultures, including stories of virgin births, resurrections and people of humble birth becoming mighty rulers.

Groundhog alert.

Haha! S/he also didn't answer the questions about who supposedly made up this particular story, what they had to gain, and the improbability of this particular story taking over Rome within 200 years if it really was fabricated. Groundhog went to the Trump school of discourse, I guess.