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.

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.

You know for a fact that the bolded is an untrue statement. You also know for a fact what the purpose of Christian missionaries are, even if you want to bundle it up with sanitizing statements such as "because we love them".

If you want to have a nice discussion, then you need to be open and honest. I won't engage with someone that lies.

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.

Did Paul get himself into some sort of trance?

Paul did not believe Christ's resurrection to be metaphorical:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 12-19: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, read a great text about the apocolyptic Jesus. He and his disciples literally thought the world was going to end, so why not be this way? Very similar to some of the more modern cults, and gradually drew followers.

Yes, the early church thought Christs second coming was going to happen in their lifetime. Most of that history is blurred as we do not really know that much about that time. Christianity officially began as a recognized religion when the bible was put together, at around year 300

True, early Christians were expecting Christ to make an immediate return, and people have been thinking Christ would return in their lifetimes since then. But Paul addressed this in 2 Thessalonians 2, and Peter addressed it in 2 Peter 3, and the gist of both is that an immanent return of Christ is not that same as an immediate one, that God is on His own timetable and that if you think Jesus is a long time in coming back, that doesn't mean He's not coming back, so don't be disappointed if it's not in your generation. So the Bible pretty much teaches not to be surprised if there's a wait.

Anonymous wrote:OP, read a great text about the apocolyptic Jesus. He and his disciples literally thought the world was going to end, so why not be this way? Very similar to some of the more modern cults, and gradually drew followers.

Yes, the early church thought Christs second coming was going to happen in their lifetime. Most of that history is blurred as we do not really know that much about that time. Christianity officially began as a recognized religion when the bible was put together, at around year 300

The advantage was a paradigm shift, a highened consciousness: that you are not defined by your family, socioeconomic status, or tribe/clan. That istead, you can form community cooperative ties based upon voluntary love and willing choice rather than being obliged. The acknowledgement that people of a different blood, are actually people , other children of god too, worthy of human respect and dignity. The thought that you can get social support from someone other than those close to you who might be abusing you in some way or mistreating you. The thought that life is not meaningless, but carries a purpose. The opportunity for personal, cultural, and community growth. These were some of the reasons, and all very good ones. Because back then, there was no "go it alone"- - - to leave your group was to either surely die or gravely threaten your short/long term existence.

Because it made all the people equal, it was appealing to the poor and people without rights. Social movement really. That is what I was thought in history.

OP, read a great text about the apocolyptic Jesus. He and his disciples literally thought the world was going to end, so why not be this way? Very similar to some of the more modern cults, and gradually drew followers.

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.

Agree, but the pp was referring specifically to Christianity as it relates to the OP.

This is all really good and it addresses the OP wanting to know historical reasons and not that it was " the true faith/messiah/whatever"

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.

Agree, but the pp was referring specifically to Christianity as it relates to the OP.