How did Jesus grow so big?

[marco]

Having read umpteen defences, eulogies, apologias for Jesus, I am persuaded he was perhaps a well-intentioned man. Obviously reports about him have erased any flaws, as one would expect so we read between the lines for negatives.

Anyway he appeared on the preaching circuit at thirty and gave the impression he was God-sent. His oratory used a warm connection between himself and his Father. If God did speak from the sky then that's all there is to it. I don't believe he did, so I see the gospels as containing lies and this seems obvious when we read Matthew.



Why are we still discussing Jesus today in countries he had no clue about? Is the endurance of his name evidence of truth? Or what factors, outside of Christ's control, might have built a giant religion?

[marco]

I think people followed Christ then for the same reason they do today -- his love, his goodness, his truth, his faithfulness -- and the recognition that he was and is exactly who he said he was and is -- Son of God, Son of Man, King of kings, Lord of lords, Saviour, Redeemer, Brother, Friend.

It's an interesting idea that Christians are attracted to a fountain of truth while Muslims are forced to submit. When Christianity was as old as Islam is now the sword was a magnificent converter. South America is largely Catholic, not by love of Jesus, but by bloodshed.

Newton said a body will continue in its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. In Muslim countries external forces are rare while in the liberal West they appear daily. Poland was 100% Christian but young people have other ideas these days. Satire, lampoons, cynicism - which I am told are ineffective - will and do change minds, especially young minds. It is hard to respect something that makes you laugh.

So your reasons for the spread of Islam are probably correct, but the same reasons applied to Christianity. When the foot was removed from Christian throats, change took place. Once upon a time Catholics attended mass every Sunday, under pain of incurring mortal sin. Now we have empty pews. Control is a much better persuader than love and sentimentality. Sadly.

[Zzyzx]

.

He points out that Islam is the fasted growing enforced religion in the world. A Muslim doesn't just face ostracism for leaving Islam. He/she faces death because it is thought that someone who leaves the religion brings shame to his/her family and community.

Let’s ignore the Inquisition, Crusades, Heresy trials, Official state Christianity, Worldwide colonialism conversions, etc. Religions tend to become ‘enforced’ when they have sufficient military or state power / influence to inflict their beliefs onto others.

Christianity's power has been curtailed in much of the world -- and proponents bemoan their loss of preferential treatment and special status.

I think people followed Christ then for the same reason they do today -- his love, his goodness, his truth, his faithfulness --

Let’s ignore children being taught (indoctrinated) to believe Bible tales while they are most gullible and impressionable – long before judgment and discernment have developed.

and the recognition that he was and is exactly who he said he was and is -- Son of God, Son of Man, King of kings, Lord of lords, Saviour, Redeemer, Brother, Friend.

In modern times, when more is known about psychological problems, such proclamations would likely lead to institutionalization or at least being heavily medicated.

[Elijah John]

How did Jesus grow so big? The preaching of Paul and the conversion of Constantine.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by marco]

Point of order, Jesus was excluded from being Jewish by Deuteronomy, if he had a human father, and it would be immaterial if divine. He was also excluded by forming his own religion.
The only way he could be Jewish is by a convention that only exists sporadically.

Then what was he, a Samaritan? If it quacks and waddles and swims, it's a duck. And as they say nowadays, he identified as Jewish.

Well perhaps he did!
But the Jews of the time disagreed so strongly, they had him crucified.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 6 by marco]

Point of order, Jesus was excluded from being Jewish by Deuteronomy, if he had a human father, and it would be immaterial if divine. He was also excluded by forming his own religion.
The only way he could be Jewish is by a convention that only exists sporadically.

Then what was he, a Samaritan? If it quacks and waddles and swims, it's a duck. And as they say nowadays, he identified as Jewish.

Well perhaps he did!
But the Jews of the time disagreed so strongly, they had him crucified.

The Jewish leaders had him crucified. If we are to believe the story, thousands of common Jews came to hear his sermons.

Did the leaders have him crucified because he wasn't Jewish or because he wanted to reform Judaism in way that would destroy their power base?


Tcg

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 6 by marco]

Point of order, Jesus was excluded from being Jewish by Deuteronomy, if he had a human father, and it would be immaterial if divine. He was also excluded by forming his own religion.
The only way he could be Jewish is by a convention that only exists sporadically.

Then what was he, a Samaritan? If it quacks and waddles and swims, it's a duck. And as they say nowadays, he identified as Jewish.

Well perhaps he did!
But the Jews of the time disagreed so strongly, they had him crucified.

Some Jews did...those affiliated with the Roman occupiers. Those in power, the Temple priesthood and their allies. They are the ones who had Jesus crucified.

Jesus was a Jewish reformer who found a lot of support among marginalized Jews and disciples of John (the Baptist) but alienated those in power. The Romans considered him a nuisance and an inconvenience.

[marco]

Jesus was a Jewish reformer who found a lot of support among marginalized Jews and disciples of John (the Baptist) but alienated those in power. The Romans considered him a nuisance and an inconvenience.

He would have found support among marginalized anybodies, given he was promising liberal helpings of heaven to the meek, the downtrodden and the poor in spirit. And given he had a choice of parentage he could have done a lot better by choosing to be born in Rome and making his way up the ladder there. He would have learned debating and oratory and how to read and write. He might have swept the Vestal Virgins away and explained how he was older than Jupiter. At least he would not have been crucified, being like Paul a Roman citizen.

Given his choice of work place it is surprising his name persists but as you say it had little to do with him.

[marco]

But the Jews of the time disagreed so strongly, they had him crucified.

Yes apparently every Jew anywhere shouted: "Crucify him." I think we accept Matthew found it hard to distinguish truth from fiction but his wicked report has done untold damage to innocent people. This is the man who brought holy corpses to life and got them to walk to Jerusalem.

They all answered, "Crucify him!" 23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" 25All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!"

I suppose Jesus was granted immortality through such fictional writers. It says little for his own message and his choice of publicists.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Obviously reports about him have erased any flaws, as one would expect so we read between the lines for negatives.

This is an uninformed modernist assessment. Jesus shows weakness and ignorance in the gospels and even says "no one but God is good"; he appears to doubt God's faithfullness at the cross. Now if one is looking for "sins" in the Judaeo Christian sense, then this expectation is historically anachronistic--an expectation I guess derives from Protestant influences (centuries after Jesus). Ancient bios did not focus on sin of the subject matter; for that matter, neither does modern.

Anyway he appeared on the preaching circuit at thirty and gave the impression he was God-sent. His oratory used a warm connection between himself and his Father. If God did speak from the sky then that's all there is to it. I don't believe he did, so I see the gospels as containing lies and this seems obvious when we read Matthew.

Why introduce an opinion without argument in an OP?

Lies? That means gospel writers knew what they were writing was untrue, but wrote it anyway, yes? can you demonstrate this? Can you provide evidence from other documents that they were well aware what they wrote in the gospels was not true?

Why are we still discussing Jesus today in countries he had no clue about?

What??? We discuss a plethora of historical figures who knew nothing about the current world! Any ancient Greek or Roman comes to mind. Any single person before "discovery" of the New World comes to mind.

Is the endurance of his name evidence of truth?

Of course not. Popularity does not indicate truth.

Or what factors, outside of Christ's control, might have built a giant religion?

Of all the questions of this OP, this one is the most interesting, because it is void of condescension and invites serious historical consideration.

A major question that scholars recently have been asking is, "Why was the preaching of a crucified Jewish King appealing to non-Jews, to the point that the preaching transformed the Roman empire?"

This is an interesting question, to say the least!

[marco]

This is an uninformed modernist assessment.

I have come to accept this is an essential feature of poor Marco's slim grasp on anything that might pass for education, Liam.

Ancient bios did not focus on sin of the subject matter; for that matter, neither does modern.

And that is why we must "read between the lines" as I ignorantly suggested. I'm not regarding Christ's weeping or consternation before crucifixion as "flaws"; they are evidence of his assigned humanity, a burden he was bearing.

Why introduce an opinion without argument in an OP?

Possibly to give some a chance to argue and others an opportunity to make acerbic comments.

Lies? That means gospel writers knew what they were writing was untrue, but wrote it anyway, yes?

Lying is the kinder alternative to stupidity. When Matthew tells us that corpses walked I think he would know this did not happen and if he did not, and genuinely thought he was recounting history, then deception would not be his worst flaw.

Of all the questions of this OP, this one is the most interesting, because it is void of condescension and invites serious historical consideration.

I am weak with rapture at such praise. I note that you have spent almost your entire post on what you see as useless, and on the part that pleases and apparently inspires, you have nothing to say. You provide cautionary advice for poor Marco lest he foolishly rise above himself. There's a fine Latin expression given to us by the Elder Pliny :

"Sutor, ne ultra crepidam" - dear shoemaker, don't rise above your last. In other words, stick to what you know. It has given us the fine word ultracrepidarian. Jesus seems to have stuck closely to that kind of advice, never venturing much beyond Scripture, but when he did as with mustard seeds, he displayed some trifling flaw. It is surprising that this humble soul bore on his shoulders not just the weight of the Vatican, but billions of other flocks all calling themselves Christian. How?

My warm wishes !