How to Answer Question on Spread of Xtianity?

[ag_NO_stic]

One thing my parents bring up when we discuss beliefs (granted it's been awhile, I've been taking a break from fighting the good fight) is "How do you explain all the hullaboo about some little inconsequential jewish teacher if he didn't actually rise from the dead? Something must have happened that people all over the world know who Jesus of Nazareth is. Why would so many write about him or feel the need to bring him up?"  

 

How do you folks answer this? I don't know what to say. It does kind of make sense that such a little peon of a guy wouldn't be as known as he is now unless something dramatic happened, don't you think? When I start thinking about hiding bodies or the disciples making stuff up.....I know I would sound like a flat earther to my parents, they would roll their eyes and never take me seriously.

 

What gives? How do you all respond to this?

[Guest]

 

One thing my parents bring up when we discuss beliefs (granted it's been awhile, I've been taking a break from fighting the good fight) is "How do you explain all the hullaboo about some little inconsequential jewish teacher if he didn't actually rise from the dead? Something must have happened that people all over the world know who Jesus of Nazareth is. Why would so many write about him or feel the need to bring him up?"  

 

How do you folks answer this? I don't know what to say. It does kind of make sense that such a little peon of a guy wouldn't be as known as he is now unless something dramatic happened, don't you think? When I start thinking about hiding bodies or the disciples making stuff up.....I know I would sound like a flat earther to my parents, they would roll their eyes and never take me seriously.

 

What gives? How do you all respond to this?

I recommend reading Bart Ehrman if you're looking to formulate your own opinion on this or possible explanations. The more widely you read, the easier it is to come to your own conclusions. I think the last book I read, Godless by Dan Barker, also touched on this. I haven't even finished Ehrman. One of the theories that I hold is that Jesus is a meme, if you can call him that, and Christianity is a meme that has become widely popular simply because people want to believe in the afterlife and in heaven. Who wouldn't want to live forever?

When you go and take a closer look at the gospels, which both Ehrman and Barker do, all the inconsistencies arise, as well as possible explanations for them. They've largely put all the questions I had about Jesus and the resurrection to rest.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

I recommend reading Bart Ehrman if you're looking to formulate your own opinion on this or possible explanations. The more widely you read, the easier it is to come to your own conclusions. I think the last book I read, Godless by Dan Barker, also touched on this. I haven't even finished Ehrman. One of the theories that I hold is that Jesus is a meme, if you can call him that, and Christianity is a meme that has become widely popular simply because people want to believe in the afterlife and in heaven. Who wouldn't want to live forever?

When you go and take a closer look at the gospels, which both Ehrman and Barker do, all the inconsistencies arise, as well as possible explanations for them. They've largely put all the questions I had about Jesus and the resurrection to rest.

 

I have many of his books on my queue, do you have one you'd recommend above others?

[TrueFreedom]

I will second the Ehrman suggestion. Elaine Paigels is great as well. Christianity spread through conquest, not through charity and persecution. The early Gnostic Christianities were persecuted out of existence. Current Christianities are only popular because the countries colonizing the world forced them upon the populations.

[TrueFreedom]

My favorite Ehrman books are Jesus, Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus. You might find How Jesus Became God and Lost Christianities interesting.

[Guest]

I'm only on my first Ehrman and that's Jesus Before the Gospels, so I can't do any comparisons of how they rank. But I think that's a great intro to the idea of how the Jesus myth spread so quickly in the centuries after he lived, if he did. And thanks for the point on the Gnostic Xtians @TrueFreedom, I was going to point that out too. It wasn't a case of everyone wanting to believe, but being forced to.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

I'm only on my first Ehrman and that's Jesus Before the Gospels, so I can't do any comparisons of how they rank. But I think that's a great intro to the idea of how the Jesus myth spread so quickly in the centuries after he lived, if he did. And thanks for the point on the Gnostic Xtians @TrueFreedom, I was going to point that out too. It wasn't a case of everyone wanting to believe, but being forced to.

 

I have no idea what you guys are referring to by "gnostic christians," I've never heard the concept. Is this in Erhman's stuff?

[Guest]

@TrueFreedom Any advice for more info on Gnostics? I've learned all this simply by reading posts in the forum....people here are so educated on these things. That itself is a great place to delve into.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

@TrueFreedom Any advice for more info on Gnostics? I've learned all this simply by reading posts in the forum....people here are so educated on these things. That itself is a great place to delve into.

 

Where are the posts? Is it on one thread or randomly dispersed? I'm still catching up on all that stuff.

[Guest]

@ag_NO_sticprobably randomly dispersed. Ive spent most of my time in testimonies, because it's a great place to read all the questions that others have had, and the answers given by others. There are great suggestions for further reading too.

[florduh]

Perhaps when Rome made it the official religion for political reasons and spread it by use of the sword, that just might have something to do with its ubiquitousness.

[TrueFreedom]

 

 

I have no idea what you guys are referring to by "gnostic christians," I've never heard the concept. Is this in Erhman's stuff?

Ehrman and Paigels have both written quite a bit about early Gnostic Christianity. I've noticed that every new find of ancient Christian writings is a Gnostic text. I find it interesting and telling that the book of Jude quotes a Gnostic text (The Book of Enoch).

[ag_NO_stic]

 

Ehrman and Paigels have both written quite a bit about early Gnostic Christianity. I've noticed that every new find of ancient Christian writings is a Gnostic text. I find it interesting and telling that the book of Jude quotes a Gnostic text (The Book of Enoch).

 

What in the hell are they? I'm telling you, I've known apologetics my whole life. I guess I need to get on google as well. So much to do/read and so little time.

[TrueFreedom]

 

 

What in the hell are they? I'm telling you, I've know apologetics my whole life. I guess I need to get on google as well. So much to do/read and so little time.

Early first century mystery religions. They gave us the dead sea scrolls and may have given us Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

[Jeff]

The gnostic stuff drives me crazy. Reading about it, and realizing how big a part of early christianity it was just makes early christianity just look absolutely wacky imo. 

[ag_NO_stic]

 

Early first century mystery religions. They gave us the dead sea scrolls and may have given us Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

 

I started to read this and my eyes absolutely glazed over. I guess I will work up to, I know I'm not stupid and am capable of eventually grasping all this. There is just so much information!

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Gnosticism, as I understand it, basically is a view that the physical world is illusion or simply inconvenient and gets in the way of true being (spirit). Jesus was seen as a spirit being or angel that came into this realm to help people be aware of their spiritual nature, and to reject the flesh that hinder their knowing this (gnostic is "knowing", agnostic is "not knowing"). Spirituality is then something that happens inside, a "knowing", rather than the Jewish laws which made people pay attention to tiny details of how they looked and behaved. From this viewpoint arises a religion with different levels of spirit, and a lower level of the physical world and flesh. With just those ideas in mind, one can see how the writings of Paul about the split between spirit and flesh, spirit and law, would be seen, and the backlash arguments from James saying that true spirituality has to show itself in physical acts of kindness. Gnostics despised the Judaic law (and any god like Yahweh that would create a physical realm) as going in completely the wrong direction.

 

When Paul says that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh and was raised as a life-giving spirit", this is often seen as a Gnostic influence (and is current teaching in Jehovah's Witnesses) since Jesus was transcending the physical realm and becoming once again true spirit. But current Christianity is rooted strongly in anti-gnostic concepts and so apologetics bring out all of the other verses where Jesus was raised physically, showing triumph over the grave with a new body (such as when he goaded Thomas to stick his finger in to the nail holes). There is some thought that the later gospels were written specifically to combat Gnostic teachings.

 

Gnostic believers were slaughtered by the early church who saw them as heretics corrupting the truth. So eventually their teachings became a background thought instead of a major part of the church.

[TrueFreedom]

Yes, a popular memory voiced by contemporary evangelicals regarding gnosticism is it's  emphasis on dualism. Since the physical body is completely separate from the spirit, what is done in the body is completely insignificant. One may continue to participate in all manner of debauchery without consequence to one's spiritual life. Paul's implication in Romans that continuing in sin results in an abundance of grace seems to compliment this perspective.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

I have no idea what you guys are referring to by "gnostic christians," I've never heard the concept. Is this in Erhman's stuff?

 

Yes, Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" talks about the early versions of Christianity, including the Gnostic Chrsitians. It's a pretty good book that shows how the so-called orthodox Christianity won out over the other versions.

 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

I have no idea what you guys are referring to by "gnostic christians," I've never heard the concept. Is this in Erhman's stuff?

 

There are two uses of the term "gnostic Christian":

 

1)  A sect of early Christianity based on a mixture of mysticism and claimed knowledge.  It was suppressed and virtually extinguished by a competing sect - early Orthodox Christians.

 

2)  A descriptor for a Christian who claims actual knowledge of their particular religious dogma and tenets.  The term that is more commonly used is "gnostic theist" as opposed to "agnostic theist", or "agnostic atheist" or "gnostic atheist".  These four terms belong to a group.  Each is making a knowledge statement (gnostic or agnostic) followed by a belief statement (theist or atheist).  Richard Dawkins came up with a seven level categorization which is similar to this:

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

There are two uses of the term "gnostic Christian":

 

1)  A sect of early Christianity based on a mixture of mysticism and claimed knowledge.  It was suppressed and virtually extinguished by a competing sect - early Orthodox Christians.

 

2)  A descriptor for a Christian who claims actual knowledge of their particular religious dogma and tenets.  The term that is more commonly used is "gnostic theist" as opposed to "agnostic theist", or "agnostic atheist" or "gnostic atheist".  These four terms belong to a group.  Each is making a knowledge statement (gnostic or agnostic) followed by a belief statement (theist or atheist).  Richard Dawkins came up with a seven level categorization which is similar to this:

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

Thanks for this. I feel like a lot of this information was floating around in my brain and you did a good job of organizing it for me. 

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

Yes, Bart Erhman's "Lost Christianities" talks about the early versions of Christianity, including the Gnostic Chrsitians. It's a pretty good book that shows how the so-called orthodox Christianity won out over the other versions.

 

 

Gosh, I have so much to catch up on with him. SO many. 

[JadedAtheist]

To touch on the main part of the question first, that is "why has Christianity managed to spread if it isn't true?" I'd simply point to other religions. Why are there billions of Muslims in the world, and hundreds of millions of Hindus and hundreds of millions of Buddhists? Your family would acknowledge that these religions are "false" and really any explanation for their spread is just as able to be applied to Christianity as it is to them.

 

There's also some false assumptions here. Christ wasn't widely talked about. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger mention him to the extant that that's who Christians believe in, and Josephus' mention is likely a later Christian interpolation. A couple of mentions about some dude literally dying and then being raised from the dead seems highly suspicious, no? We also have to keep in mind that this was also a time where historical figures were later mythologised (such as Alexander the Great, among many others). Roman emperors were even deified. As time passes on stories have a tendency of becoming grander. If Alexander the Great can go from being a mortal to the son of a god, then why can't Jesus?

 

Ultimately, the more I read about ancient history (especially primary sources) the more I realised how absurd it was for me to have believed in Christianity. As others have mentioned, Ehrman is a good starting point. I also recommend both volumes of "The Story of Christianity" as it gives you a nice readable history of it and will probably serve as a good foundation to anything else you read.  Misquoting Jesus and Early Christianities are probably Ehrman's best books on this topic. Robert Price's "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" is also a good book, he is somewhat "radical" in that he doesn't believe Jesus (or even the apostles, including Paul) existed but he provides pretty compelling evidence why.

 

When you see how so many of the tales of Jesus in the gospels have equivalent pagan stories featuring different gods it makes it harder to accept that he ever really existed, and if he did then everything recorded in the gospels is made up and really gives us no insight into who he was, and only really tells us of the agenda the gospel writers were looking to push, but I digress. Ehrman and Price are good for looking at 2 different perspectives of Jesus and will probably help you formulate your own opinion.

 

In summary, Christianity's spread can be explained by simply looking at how other religions spread. Nothing fancy there. 

[JadedAtheist]

 

 

I have no idea what you guys are referring to by "gnostic christians," I've never heard the concept. Is this in Erhman's stuff?

 

Missed replying to this earlier, other's have given a good synopsis of the gnostics. I just wanted to point out that you might have heard a little about them previously (depending on the type of church you went to I suppose) as certain epistles are thought to have been trying to combat a "proto-gnosticism" (off the top of my head I believe they were Colossians and perhaps Ephesians - been too long now). Whenever you see passages emphasize Christ's physicality  (like when Jesus says "touch my sides"), this is the writer trying to discredit this type of Christology.

[DanForsman]

Hi agNostic. I left the fundamental evangelical church my christian parents brought me up in when I was 15, more than 50 years ago. Information regarding proof either for or against the things stated in the bible were hard to find and few in number. In fact I believed the things our church feed me that the bible was widely accepted as the best historical record of that time period and that specific proofs for the claims made by the bible were readily available in the pastor's study. Nevertheless I risked being thrown out my family by announcing my disbelief because all the generalized reasons along the lines of the one your parents are making not only seemed counter intuitive but they left me feeling certain enough that basic christian bible truths were simply false that I was willing to stake my (nonexistent) immortal soul on that certainty. So fist off I think it is very important to keep in mind that even if every chistrian sect agreed enough that they could be called a single religion about two thirds of humanity chooses to believe something else. Additionally by 2050 Islam will match christianity in the number of adherents and the percentage of christians in the US will fall from 3/4 to 2/3 of the population if present trends continue. After that time Islam will slowly become be the largest world religion by 2100.  http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/        How true a religion is has nothing to do with how popular it is or how well know it is. At any given time one religion will be more popular than any other on earth and then it would be reasonable to assume that many people would have heard of it. But that position can and does change without making one or the other more or less true. Zeus is an incredibly well know god even today having been popular in both Greece and Rome. Does it follow that there must be some truth to his divinity? If your parents believe in the holy spirit then their global perspective would indicate to me that their god is fabricated rather than the other way around. If they believe in the trinity that the holy spirit is in fact Jesus himself and the creator of the universe. This incredibly powerful force was unleashed more than 2000 years ago and yet Islam is the fastest growing religion and 2/3 of the people on earth find something other than christianity compelling. If the creator of the universe actually entered the minds and bodies of humans I would think this would be a monumental experience unlike any other so when one person shared this incredible experience with another they would share with another and christianity would spread like wildfire. That hasn't happened and religions continue to maintain their popularity within their various geographic locations. Once you convince yourself agNostic I don't think you'll feel so compelled to respond to whatever logic facilities your parents present.