How did the historical Jesus become famous?

[Paul of Tarsus]

As you should know some non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a "small time" Jewish preacher. He never rose from the dead. Nevertheless, Jesus and his life inspired the world's largest religion. If Ehrman and Crossan are right about Jesus, then we must ask how Jesus became the lasting focal point of his followers. Why did the disciples preach that he was God's right-hand man and savior of the world if they knew he had suffered an ignominious death at the hands of the Romans never to be seen again?

The pieces of this puzzle don't fit together very well. It seems likely to me that Jesus would have been very famous in his day to inspire people the way he did. On the other hand, a very famous Jesus would have probably been noticed by the historians of the early first century, yet they say nothing about him.

Any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.

[Paul of Tarsus]

How did the historical Jesus become famous?

In reading the comments in this thread, I see an important factor related to most Christian Thinking, is missing from the equation...the belief that Lucifer is "The God of This World."

IF this is actually the case, THEN who could possibly become famous without it being authorized by Lucifer?

So your answer is that the Devil made Jesus famous. Why didn't I think of that?

[William]

How did the historical Jesus become famous?

In reading the comments in this thread, I see an important factor related to most Christian Thinking, is missing from the equation...the belief that Lucifer is "The God of This World."

IF this is actually the case, THEN who could possibly become famous without it being authorized by Lucifer?

So your answer is that the Devil made Jesus famous.

I don't think it works that way. When it comes to talent itself, goods looks, gift of the gab etc - things associated with fame, and mentioned already re Jesus, many non-famous folk have these qualities...
The OPQ asks "How" and my post simply observes that IF Lucifer is "The God of This World.", THEN who could possibly become famous without it being authorized by Lucifer?

Why didn't I think of that?

You might be someone who does not believes that Lucifer is The God of This World.

[JoeyKnothead]

From The OP:

As you should know some non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a "small time" Jewish preacher.

While I challenge anyone to offer some means to offer some means beyond the book making the claim/s to offer some means to onfirm he even existed, much less all that other stuff.

He never rose from the dead.

Kinda hard to prove someone died, if ya can't show they ever existed to have done it.

Nevertheless, Jesus and his life inspired the world's largest religion.

Based on a book claiming sticking sticks in the ground changes the colors and patterns of animals.

Heck, if that be truth, I can poke me a stick in the ground, and I can get me some plaid ham and sausage. Or oh no, rainbow sausage that sets some bakers to just bubble over in a hatred pride.

If Ehrman and Crossan are right about Jesus, then we must ask how Jesus became the lasting focal point of his followers.

Folks are shown to hold em some goofy beliefs, that's fact. In example, I point to how some folks here don't just set to em to em digesticulating to when I post me a post. It's kinda quite upsetting, cept to know the last time I was wrong was the next time me and the pretty thing have us an argument.

But crossaints are delicious.

Why did the disciples preach that he was God's right-hand man and savior of the world if they knew he had suffered an ignominious death at the hands of the Romans never to be seen again?

They tried to argue with the the pretty thing on how milking goats don't mean ya need a hundred dollars worth of high heels to do it? And come away from it thinking, "oh, what the heck heck, it's easier to just go along." ?

The pieces of this puzzle don't fit together very well.

Like trying to fit you ten pounds worth of claims into an ounce box worth of evidence for em.

Sure, you got you a whole ounce of evidence, but there's nigh on ten ponds of claims adripping on the ground.

It seems likely to me that Jesus would have been very famous in his day to inspire people the way he did.

I'm reminded of Tayor Swift fans.

She's prettiern a hunderd dollar biscuit, but I'd hafta fill her mouth full of peanut butter and molasses just to fetch with her for too much.

But I'd fetch after er all the same

Any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.

Folks can be found to seek "deeper understanding" just as some others seek cheaper liquor.


How did the 'historical' Jesus become famous?

Some folks just beleived claims that can't be shown to be truth. Like this 'Jesus' feller ever actually existing, and claims about him and all such as that.

Often by preachers who can't show they do. Preachers preach, and liars lie.

And don't it beat all, now gay homo wedding cakes are the new forbidden fruit.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

A better question is why did Jesus become famous. The obvious answer is that humans aren't fond of the finality of death and other existential realities of life. Find a story that provides a means to ignore these realities and humans will flock to it like ducks running to enriched bread.

In the same way that enriched bread isn't healthy for ducks, means to deny reality isn't healthy for humans. Regardless, both eat 'em up.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

A better question is why did Jesus become famous. The obvious answer is that humans aren't fond of the finality of death and other existential realities of life. Find a story that provides a means to ignore these realities and humans will flock to it like ducks running to enriched bread.

In the same way that enriched bread isn't healthy for ducks, means to deny reality isn't healthy for humans. Regardless, both eat 'em up.


Tcg

I'd like to amend my previous comments, to swear me up and down, this is what I said all along.

And I'll get onto me anyone who says I didn't.

[William]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

A better question is why did Jesus become famous. The obvious answer is that humans aren't fond of the finality of death and other existential realities of life. Find a story that provides a means to ignore these realities and humans will flock to it like ducks running to enriched bread.

In the same way that enriched bread isn't healthy for ducks, means to deny reality isn't healthy for humans. Regardless, both eat 'em up.


Tcg

Maybe that is what Atheist are afraid of...the idea of living forever...since it is the opposing position of 'being afraid of the finality of death'.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's a lot of interesting points in this thread.

The topic suggests itself to me as the process by which Christianity became so dominant. While Christianity was one more religion along with Mithraism, Isis -worship and the like (Cybele, Attis, Serapis), it attracted a huge following and (I suspect) would have become the dominant religion in Rome, Constantine or no. What was the appeal?

The answer we often get is 'Because it was true and everyone knew it'.

Not quite that. But it was a very convincing tale, and about someone who had lived in their lifetimes. It was very different from the various tales about ancient gods and their strange doings. This fellow taught, healed and performed deeds. And there was a properly explained way of being saved to an afterlife that was rather vague, if not doubtful in the other religions, which were more about getting divine favours in this life. Oh yes, one can certainly see the appeal.

That doesn't make it true, of course. The story certainly looks like it is a straight and reliable record of Jesus' doings and sayings as recorded by his followers. But it isn't and demonstrably isn't. But that isn't the topic. What is (perhaps) the topic is how the tale (claims) was shaped over the decades to make the story more circumstantial and reliable. Thus the story looked very, very convincing and persuasive, and still does.

[Paul of Tarsus]

The fact that Jesus' followers continued to think he was the messiah after his death is really only explicable on the grounds that they thought he had risen from the dead, and thus God had vindicated his messianic claim.

This hypothesis has the advantage over what most secular historians tell us happened in that it establishes a motive for the rise of Christianity. If Jesus just died and was gone, then it seems odd to me that anybody would think he was anything more than a loser.

Again, secular scholars think Jesus' followers came to believe he had been raised from the dead, too, so I'm not sure I understand your concerns here.

My concern is that there is an atheistic bias among some scholars that keeps them from openly considering the resurrection of Christ as a historical event.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't think that matters. There is also a very clear bias on the part of some scholars to consider the resurrection as a historical event. I would certainly advocate approaching the story as a claim for a historical event that happened pretty much as described. Metaphors and symbolism don't really matter.

What matters is that Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection -claim and that means that the resurrection -claim has to be (meaningfully) approached as a claim to a reliable record of an actual event.

[Paul of Tarsus]

...tale (claims) was shaped over the decades to make the story more circumstantial and reliable. Thus the story looked very, very convincing and persuasive, and still does.

So Jesus caught on big because his story convinced a lot of people. While that is obviously true, we still don't know how Jesus inspired that story to begin with. How did a loser-flunky supposed Messiah who just ended up executed inspire that story? I think the prevailing theory doesn't fit the facts about the origins of the Christian religion. I can think of two versions that fit much better:

1. The entire gospel story is a fabrication, and the crucifixion of Christ is a literary device included in the story to add irony to his later rising from the dead.
2. The gospel story including the death and resurrection of Christ is actual history.

Both of these hypotheses better explain the rise of Christianity.