Don’t pull a con where people know you

[Zzyzx]

.
An expert con man I knew said, “Don’t pull a con where people know you; the farther from home the better.�

The same was probably true 2000 years ago. Notice that Christianity did not grow and prosper where Jesus lived – but in Rome, which is well over a thousand miles away and/or across the Mediterranean Sea.

This is not to say Jesus was a conman. He was likely just another wandering preacher of Judaism NOT Christianity, and may have been one of many wannabe messiahs of the era and area. He evidently did not advocate development of a new religion.

Notice that he was not accepted by religionists of his area as being even authentic, let alone being ‘divine’ or the ‘promised messiah’ – they considered him a blasphemer and participated in his death (according to tales). Some of his entourage may have thought him to be ‘divine’ or capable of ‘walking on water’, but they seem to be a small minority of special interest people.

People living hundreds or thousands of miles away were more easily convinced to believe supernatural tales since they were not present to observe first-hand or to know personally people who did have personal knowledge.

Paul/Saul might have been a conman or at least an opportunist. He entered the scene years after Jesus was dead, claiming that Jesus appeared to him in a ‘vision’ (or hallucination or delusion or a fabrication or whatever it was supposed to be). Great story – which he doesn’t even write about himself, but leaves to the author of Acts (whoever that may have been).

Based upon the ‘vision’ Paul/Saul became promoter of a splinter group religion BUT he pitches it to Romans – Gentiles – who are far away and who are not Jewish. That audience knew nothing of Jesus and could not contradict claims and stories that glorified and deified him.

Question for debate: Why was 'Jesus following' rejected by his home area but successful among those who were not familiar with him, his preaching, or his culture?

[JehovahsWitness]

Question for debate: Why was 'Jesus following' rejected by his home area but successful among those who were not familiar with him, his preaching, or his culture?

This is untrue. According to the bible narrative by FAR the majority of Jesus disciples were from Jesus home area of Galilee. Eleven of his 12 Apotles were Galileans, at least two of whom were his own relatives.






RELATED POSTS

Was Jesus a "fake Messiah" instigated by the Romans to counteract insurgency?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 82#p933982

Did Jesus manoeuvre events so he only appeared to be the Messiah?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p847881

Why did the Jews reject Jesus's Messiahship?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 53#p886853

Go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...JESUS CHRIST

[bluegreenearth]

From the amateur research I've done, it appears Christianity was not that popular in the Hellenistic culture of Rome either during the 1st century relative to the popularity of other mystery religions such as Mithraism. Christianity didn't really gain traction until the Ante-Nicene Period (c.100-325 CE). However, the growth of Christianity during this time period is a bit misleading because it doesn't distinguish between the numerous versions of Christianity that were competing with each other. It wasn't until the 4th and 5th centuries that Christian theology became more homologous under the influence of the first seven ecumenical councils.

[bluegreenearth]

Question for debate: Why was 'Jesus following' rejected by his home area but successful among those who were not familiar with him, his preaching, or his culture?

This is untrue. According to the bible narrative by FAR the majority of Jesus disciples were from Jesus home area of Galilee. Eleven of his 12 Apotles were Galileans, at least two of whom were his own relatives.

Go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...JESUS CHRIST

According to Donald Trump, his inauguration crowd was the largest in history. Therefore, we must accept that claim is historical fact? Is this the argument you are using to defend the claim that Christianity was widely accepted in and around his home town? Even if Christianity was popular in and around the home town of Jesus, referring to the Gospels as a defense presents a clear conflict of interest.

[Zzyzx]

.

Question for debate: Why was 'Jesus following' rejected by his home area but successful among those who were not familiar with him, his preaching, or his culture?

This is untrue. According to the bible narrative by FAR the majority of Jesus disciples were from Jesus home area of Galilee. Eleven of his 12 Apotles were Galileans, at least two of whom were his own relatives.

Were there perhaps more than 12 people in the area?

Did you overlook “Some of his entourage may have thought him to be ‘divine’ or capable of ‘walking on water’, but they seem to be a small minority of special interest people.�

Entourage means: “one's attendants or associates�. https://www.merriam-webster.com

Yes, his ‘disciples’ believed. Did Jewish priests and their people believe Jesus to be the miracle-worker / messiah?

[Divine Insight]

Question for debate: Why was 'Jesus following' rejected by his home area but successful among those who were not familiar with him, his preaching, or his culture?

I personally don't see any reason to believe that the Jesus described in the Gospel rumors ever existed. At least not as described in those stories.

This isn't to say that there may not have been an actual person who might have been the fodder for the New Testament tales.

There are simply too many claims in the Gospels about Jesus that cannot possibly be true. They claim that Jesus was widely known for his miraculous healing powers and that people sought him out from far off lands. The problems with these claims is that there simply isn't and historical evidence that anyone heard of Jesus in these far off lands. In fact, he apparently wasn't even very well-known locally.

The claims that multitudes followed Jesus around are most likely a total fabrication. At or the very best an extreme exaggeration. In fact, reading the Gospel rumors clearly shows that the authors were making things up on many occasions. They claimed to know about conversations and plots that were being devised by the Jewish Priests, and Pilate, etc. They would have needed to be a fly on the wall to have overheard everything they claimed to know.

So I see no point in speculating that this was any sort of successful con job. The Gospel rumors are simply an extreme exaggeration, or even a total fabrication of many things that most likely never even happened.

By the way, Jesus did not inspired a lot of people to follow him. Christianity didn't even begin to take off until it was created via these Gospel rumors and other documents, and it was finally decreed by authorities that anyone who dares to challenge these "Holy Scriptures" will meet with extremely unpleasant fates, or even death.

So Jesus wasn't even the inspiration for Christianity anyway.

It wasn't so much of a con-job as it was a mandate that people must either accept this religion or face dire consequences. And that's the way it remained for many centuries. In fact, it was still pretty much that way all the up until the days of Isaac Newton.

The freedom to truly question and reject this religion is actually a very recent development that has only emerged over the past few centuries. And there is still a very large theological dark cloud over-hanging the followers of this religion. They have still been conditioned to be seen as heathens or heretics if they actually leave the faith.

Just look at the way the followers have been trained to view atheists. The stigma of refusing to accept and believe in this religion is unfortunately still quite powerful to this very day.

So no. It wasn't a successful con-job. It was a successful authoritative mandate. Believe it, or be damned, not only by the God of the religion, but also by the society in general.

The freedom to reject this religion is still difficult for those who are deeply indoctrinated into it.

[Zzyzx]

.

So no. It wasn't a successful con-job.

Could it be considered a successful con job if Paul/Saul and associates developed a new splinter group religion by convincing out-of-area people that a supernatural character had performed supernatural feats that demonstrated his divinity?

That con wouldn't work on people from the immediate area if they knew it was a made-up story.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Why wasn't Jesus accepted at home?

1. It was, for some reason, written in Greek and not Aramaic, Hebrew, Canaan or Phoenecian.
2. It had Hellenic morality, incompatible with Judaic: Don't stone adulterers, turn the other cheek, and others.
3. Jesus was a blasphemer, if you don't like my reasons (Rome's blasphemous tax, abrogating commandments) then just believe the Judaic priests' reasons for having him arrested and killed FOR BLASPHEMY. No true Jew could accept Jesus as is. Though, there were probably less devote ones, who did - obviously.
4. He was not 'ordained' by anyone serious... John the Baptist was a nobody, who claimed Jesus was great, and Jesus claimed John was great. Only a Christian would be fooled by this.
5. He was a bastard, Deuteronomy states Jesus circumstances of birth would have him rejected.
6. Let's face it, the Talmud states Jesus father was a Roman soldier, YOU DON'T ESCAPE A RUMOR LIKE THAT, true or not. The Jews of the day said he was product of an unholy union. He would have been more anti-Christ to them (how's that for a pun )

That's for starters...

[Zzyzx]

.

John the Baptist was a nobody, who claimed Jesus was great, and Jesus claimed John was great.

J the B might be regarded as somewhat important if he inspired a laborer to take up preaching (easier than working for a living). We can’t know what actually happened since all there is to go on are tales from religious promotional propaganda – that tend to glamorize their characters.

[Divine Insight]

.

So no. It wasn't a successful con-job.

Could it be considered a successful con job if Paul/Saul and associates developed a new splinter group religion by convincing out-of-area people that a supernatural character had performed supernatural feats that demonstrated his divinity?

That con wouldn't work on people from the immediate area if they knew it was a made-up story.

I suppose you could say that the con-job worked on Constantine. Or at least it worked on his mother who then influenced him to embrace it. But even then Christianity wasn't much of a religion. It was actually Constantine who first made it legal, then made it mandatory, and finally set out to abolish all other religions.

Constantine was also heavily involved in having the "Holy Scriptures" penned by scribes. So he most likely had a lot of say in the editing process as well. So finally anyone who dared to question the "Holy Scriptures" of Christianity would be in serious trouble with the Roman authorities.

So yeah, I supposed Constantine was conned. But not by Jesus. In fact, Constantine may very well have been a major contributor to the con-job. If anything Jesus was nothing more than a dead-man by that time who was being used as a patsy by others who were creating the con-job of Christianity in Jesus' name.