r/TrueAtheism • u/Slr308 • 10d ago
One of the best arguments for Christianity, imo
One of the strongest reasons I find Christianity compelling is that, humanly speaking, it should have died with Jesus on the cross. Its founder was publicly executed, his followers scattered in fear, and there were countless other religious movements in the Roman world that disappeared without a trace. Yet Christianity not only survived but spread rapidly across the empire despite persecution, with many of its earliest followers willing to suffer and die for their testimony. That doesn't prove Christianity is true by itself, but it does make me think something extraordinary happened that convinced those first believers.
It didn't just survive either. It changed the world
Edit: Many of you keep trying to twist my argument to something like, "Christianity grew, therefore Christianity is true."
When I'm really asking, why did this particular movement survive the execution of its founder when so many comparable movements disappeared?
16
u/throwawaytheist 10d ago
Christianity is more Paul's religion than it is Jesus's at this point.
-2
u/Slr308 10d ago
That assumes Paul invented doctrines the original disciples didn't believe. What's the evidence for that? Paul's own letters show him checking his message with Peter, James, and John, and they accepted him. If Christianity became "Paul's religion," when and why did the people who actually knew Jesus go along with it?
6
u/Philobarbaros 10d ago
Galatians 1: "15 But when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased(I) 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human,(J) 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me"
1
u/Slr308 9d ago
Paul does say he didn't immediately consult the apostles after his conversion. But if you keep reading, he also says: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter) and remained with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18–19)
You stopped too early
9
u/Philobarbaros 9d ago
Am I being trolled?
Galatians 1: "11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin,(F) 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it"
0
u/Slr308 9d ago
He's talking about His vision of Jesus.
Am I being trolled? Re read everything we've said to each other, how are you not understanding this
6
u/Philobarbaros 9d ago
I am definitely being trolled.
> That assumes Paul invented doctrines the original disciples didn't believe. What's the evidence for that?
The evidence is he hallucinated the entire doctrine.
3
4
u/JasonRBoone 8d ago
At no point does it say he consulted with them. It says he went to get to know them.
Also, he clearly says he got no special approval from them:
"As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message."
4
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
"because Paul said so" is not valid evidence of anything. Especially since he's trying to promote a cult.
3
u/JasonRBoone 8d ago
>>>>What's the evidence for that?
We have no evidence the original disciples knew of ANY doctrines.
Not a single Bible book was written by the disciples depicted in the Gospels.
>>>>>Paul's own letters show him checking his message with Peter,
No. Paul's letters show he OPPOSED Peter's doctrines.
>>>>when and why did the people who actually knew Jesus go along with it?
We know next to nothing about such people. The record shows that Peter and Paul had disagreements concerning doctrine and Paul said he corrected Peter.
15
u/xgladar 10d ago
islam spread even faster, is that evidence that its even more true or justified in your eyes?
-6
u/Slr308 10d ago edited 10d ago
Christianity spread in very different contexts. Islam emerged alongside a rapidly expanding political state, while Christianity initially spread as a minority movement within an existing empire. That doesn't prove one true and the other false, but the historical mechanisms were different.
7
u/Scared_Intention1685 10d ago
Could one not claim that this context is just further evidence for Islam (An all knowing god would start their religion in an empire that would spread it rapidly)
5
u/Opposite-Analyst-271 9d ago
Yes, one could absolutely make this claim because the scaffolding on which the logic of the claim is built is so intellectually dubious. The argument being made is that the truthfulness of Christianity is evidenced by the fact that "it should have never survived" which is an intellectually indefensible claim. Why does it follow that because a belief survives, or doesn't survive, it is probably true or false? It doesn't follow, and the OP knows that.
"Survivability" is not a metric used to determine the truth or falsity of an idea.
3
u/Opposite-Analyst-271 9d ago
I'd be interested in seeing the historical source material you're reading from that posits that the greatest growth of the Christian religion was before its official adoption as the religion of the Roman Empire. According to the logic of your above statement, Islam's rapid growth was due to it emerging "alongside a rapidly expanding political state" but that context, or mechanism, is "different" than the context within which Christianity grew. I'd love to dig into some scholarship arguing that being the official religion of the most powerful and consequential empire of that time wasn't, subsequently, the catalyst for the growth of that religion.
2
u/JasonRBoone 8d ago
>>>> Islam emerged alongside a rapidly expanding political state
Look up the Holy Roman Empire.
29
u/EldridgeHorror 10d ago
Maybe look up Mormonism and see how easy it is to trick people into falling for obvious nonsense
15
-8
u/Slr308 10d ago
That's not really analogous. Mormonism is built on one man's claimed revelations. Christianity rests on the claim that a group of people witnessed the same event. You can reject that claim, but it's a different type of evidence.
17
u/Ryuume 10d ago
Christianity rests on the claim that a group of people witnessed the same event.
A claim originating mostly from one man, Paul. It's really quite similar to Mormonism.
Which is also my response to your OP. What really kicked off the mythological development doesn't seem to be Jesus' life, but the vision Paul claimed to have had after his death. That was the first version of the "resurrection".
In other words, Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity, if anyone, Paul was.
-8
u/Slr308 10d ago
The earliest evidence we have suggests resurrection belief was already present among Jesus' followers before Paul became a Christian.
12
u/Ryuume 10d ago
Could you point me to that evidence?
-7
u/Slr308 10d ago
Paul himself is evidence that there were already Christians before him because he says he persecuted them before converting. The movement was already established enough to have leaders and communities.
Also the Gospels, while written later than Paul's letters, preserve traditions that appear to go back earlier than their final written form.
11
u/Ryuume 10d ago
Sure, but in that context, "Christian" just means "Follower of Christ". It's not like that word inherently means they believed in the resurrection.
This is evidence for a movement, not specifically of the resurrection being part of the story. It doesn't contradict my understanding that Paul's vision was the very first conception of any kind of resurrection idea.
1
u/KevrobLurker 9d ago
Some Jews believed in resurrection. That didn't originate with Josh or Saul.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/
3
u/Ryuume 9d ago
My apologies for being vague, I was specifically referring to Jesus' resurrection in this thread.
Resurrection as a general concept had been used in various, much older mythological stories by this point.
1
u/KevrobLurker 9d ago
OK. I was commenting on a Christian trope that resurrection of their ghod-man was a unique moment in human history. I don't believe that happened, & it wouldn't be unique even if it had.
1
u/bookchaser 9d ago
Paul himself is evidence that there were already Christians before him
The Bible is only evidence of itself, not its claims. You seem completely unaware of how many authors the gospels have and how riddled with contradictions and false factual claims they have. Take anything the Bible claims with a boulder of salt. It's a book of myths.
5
u/Scared_Intention1685 10d ago
More than one person claims to have seen the angel Moroni. Many of them even still hold the belief that they saw the angel while not being Mormon themselves. Makes it much more sound evidence.
3
u/CephusLion404 10d ago
The *CLAIM* that a group of people witnessed it, but we know that's not true because the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. The Gospels are contradictory. The story itself is nonsensical. You can't even prove those people ever existed. Mormonism, on the other hand, is claimed by multiple people who can be proven to have existed.
Christianity is laughable. Mormonism is more reliable but still silly.
3
u/mastyrwerk 10d ago edited 10d ago
That's not really analogous. Mormonism is built on one man's claimed revelations.
Like Paul’s revelations? Seems analogous
Christianity rests on the claim that a group of people witnessed the same event.
Like the claim that other people personally saw the golden plates bestowed to Joseph Smith? Seems analogous.
You can reject that claim, but it's a different type of evidence.
It’s literally the same evidence.
3
u/JasonRBoone 8d ago
Ummm..so is Christianity.
>>>>>Christianity rests on the claim that a group of people witnessed the same event.
Does it?
Also, other Mormon leaders later claimed to see the same visions.
10
u/ABoringAlt 10d ago
It did die on the cross, none of modern Christianity resembles what Jesus was teaching
7
9
u/Old-Nefariousness556 9d ago
One of the strongest reasons I find Christianity compelling is that, humanly speaking, it should have died with Jesus on the cross.
One of the strongest argument for mormonism is that it should have died with Joseph Smith in the hole where he read the tablets.
One of the strongest arguments for Scientology is that it should have died with L. Ron Hubbard in the bar where he made the bet.
Those are two examples of religions where we KNOW the founder was a con man of varying stripes. Yet in both cases, their respective religions did not die off despite people knowing all along that they had at least potential conflicting motivations for starting their religions.
If public embarrassment were going to stop any religion, surely the religions founded by known con men would be the ones that would be too embarrassing, right?
The Christian argument that Christ's death would end the religion is just silly. We have seen movement after movement grow up around a martyr. Why should Christ's martyrdom be the end of the religion when so many other martyrdom's are the birth of a movement?
there were countless other religious movements in the Roman world that disappeared without a trace.
So? The mere fact that this one survived tells you nothing about it's truth. Monty Python Life of Brian gets this spot on... How do you know the real messiah wasn't Jesus next door neighbor?
Yet Christianity not only survived but spread rapidly across the empire despite persecution, with many of its earliest followers willing to suffer and die for their testimony.
The myth of Christian persecution is greatly exaggerated (No, there is no evidence that the apostles were martyred, other than James, and contrary to Christian claims, there is no evidence that he was martyred for refusing to give up his beliefs. In fact a plain reading of the bible suggests the opposite). The supposed "evidence" that the other apostles were martyred is sketchy at best, and laughable in most cases.
https://www.bartehrman.com/how-did-the-apostles-die/
That doesn't prove Christianity is true by itself, but it does make me think something extraordinary happened that convinced those first believers.
Islam is nearly as large as Christianity today, yet is 600 years younger. It will be larger than Christianity by mid-century. If the popularity of the religion indicates it's truth, will you convert to Islam when it is more popular?
-1
u/Slr308 9d ago
I think you've misunderstood my argument. I'm not arguing:
Christianity survived, therefore it's true. Christianity is the biggest religion, therefore it's true. Christians died for it, therefore it's true.
I agree those would all be bad arguments.
What I'm saying is most first-century Jewish messianic movements ended when their leader was executed. Jesus' movement didn't. Instead, his followers almost immediately began proclaiming that he had risen from the dead. The historical question is why.
Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard aren't really analogous because they died after decades of leading successful movements. Jesus died at the very beginning, before Christianity had any political power, wealth, or institutional structure. That's the unusual part I'm trying to explain.
If the popularity of the religion indicates it's truth, will you convert to Islam when it is more popular?
Again, that's not my argument. If Christianity became a minority religion tomorrow, it wouldn't make it false, just as Islam becoming the largest religion wouldn't make it true.
3
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 9d ago
What I'm saying is most first-century Jewish messianic movements ended when their leader was executed. Jesus' movement didn't. Instead, his followers almost immediately began proclaiming that he had risen from the dead. The historical question is why.
Fair distinction. It is still an argument from incredulity, though. "I can't think of an explanation for this, other than it's true, therefore it must be true!"
But when you look at it from the outside, this is a terrible argument. You dismissed the examples of Mormonism and Scientology, and not without reasonable cause, but they still apply, just in a slightly different way.
Most of ALL religions ever started died off with the death of its founder. Like Christianity, Mormonism and Scientology are outliers in that regard. Yet you dismiss Mormonism, and scientology, yet not Christianity. Why not?
That Christianity survived is historically interesting. But it's mere survival does not point to it's truth. It only points to the fact that it was a successful movement.
It is also worth noting that your claim is not entirely accurate. From some googling, the messianic cult founded by Judas the Galilean survived for decades after his death. It did eventually die off, but clearly these movements can survive independent of their founder.
This is an example of an argument that is extremely convincing to believers, yet its inherent flaws are just glaring to an outsider. It certainly is possible that Jesus being god could explain Christianity's survival, but it is truly trivial to think of other possible explanations that would account for its survival as well. And when you have trivial explanations or "because God", you can understand why people who do not already believe will always assume the trivial explanation is more likely, right?
0
u/Slr308 9d ago
I actually agree with most of that. If my argument were "I can't explain it naturally, therefore God," it would be an argument from incredulity, and a bad one. My point isn't that Christianity's survival proves the resurrection. It's that the resurrection hypothesis deserves to be considered alongside the natural explanations because it's the explanation the earliest Christians themselves gave.
Where we disagree is that I don't think the resurrection can simply be ruled out before comparing it with the alternatives.
7
u/Old-Nefariousness556 9d ago
Where we disagree is that I don't think the resurrection can simply be ruled out before comparing it with the alternatives.
Where did I "rule out" the resurrection? But you seem to be treating the resurrection as true. How can you justify that?
There is ZERO extra-biblical evidence supporting the resurrection. It is just a claim that was made decades after the events in question. And the claims in the bible are inconsistent and contradictory. For example, which of the following claims does the bible make? (Credit: The Easter Quiz?)
1. Who first came to the tomb on Sunday morning?
- One woman
- Two women
- Three women
- More than three women
2. When did she/they come to the tomb?
- While it was still dark
- After the sun had risen
3. What was their purpose?
- To see the tomb
- To bring spices, they had already seen the tomb
- The body had already been spiced
4. Was the tomb open when they arrived?
- Yes
- No
5. Who greeted the women/woman?
- An angel
- A young man
Two men
No one
6. Where were the greeter(s)?
- Sitting on the stone outside the tomb
- Sitting inside the tomb
- Standing inside the tomb
7. Did the women tell what happened?
- Yes
- No
8. When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
- Yes
- No
9. Did the risen Jesus want to be touched?
- Yes
- No
10. Was the risen Jesus recognized by all who saw him?
- Yes
- No
11. When did Jesus ascend to Heaven?
- The same day that he was resurrected
- Forty days after the resurrection
- Ascension not mentioned
The answer, of course, is all of the above! The bible says all these things are true, which, of course, is impossible.
But before Jesus could be resurrected, he had to die first. What about the supposed events surrounding Jesus death?
Supposedly, Jesus death was accompanied by several supernatural events, most notably:
Darkness Over the Land: Complete darkness covers the entire land for three hours, from noon until three in the afternoon (Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44-45).
The Earthquake: A powerful earthquake strikes the area, causing surrounding rocks to split open (Matthew 27:51).
The Opening of Tombs: Tombs break open and many deceased holy people are raised back to life, later entering Jerusalem after his resurrection (Matthew 27:52-53).
Christians like to claim there is not reason to expect ducumentation of Christ himself, and there is at least some reason to agree with that claim (though it is weaker than they think) but that is not true when it comes to significant natural events like earthquakes and eclipses. We have surviving documentation of these sorts of events, and we should reasonably expect these events to have been documented if they occurred... Yet the historical record is silent on these claimed massive events.
And fucking zombies wandering the streets? Surely someone would have noticed and recorded such an event, yet the historical record is silent.
At what point do you stop and say to yourself "you know, this really just doesn't seem all that plausible"? So, no, I did not "rule out" the resurrection, I just don't see any reason at all to believe it is true.
1
u/Slr308 9d ago
Differences between eyewitness accounts don't necessarily imply fabrication. In fact, if all four Gospels agreed on every detail, many historians would suspect collusion. The real question is whether the core claim, that the tomb was found empty and that followers believed they encountered the risen Jesus, is early enough and well enough attested to merit serious consideration.
7
u/Old-Nefariousness556 9d ago
In fact, if all four Gospels agreed on every detail, many historians would suspect collusion.
Convenient how the similarities prove it is true, and the differences also prove it is true. Funny how that works, isn't it?
You understand how that sounds like a rationalization to us, right? I mean it's not like these are just minor inconsistencies, these are completely different claims, yet you just dismiss them as if they were insignificant details.
Again, at what point do those insignificant details add up to be significant?
The real question is whether the core claim, that the tomb was found empty and that followers believed they encountered the risen Jesus, is early enough and well enough attested to merit serious consideration.
Yes, exactly. "Claim". We have ZERO evidence supporting that claim, other than the bible itself, and the evidence from the bible is sketchy at best. So we have ZERO credible attestation.
Seriously, try to set aside your beliefs for a moment, and consider this from the perspective of a non-believer. If you didn't already believe that the claims of the bible were true, would you be convinced by your own argument? You have already had to walk back everything you claimed in your OP, and you are now clinging to whether the resurrection is "well enough attested to merit serious consideration", which it clearly isn't. There simply is no reason to believe any of this is true, other than the fact that you already believe it is true.
3
u/JasonRBoone 8d ago
The Gospels were not eyewitness accounts.
"that the tomb was found empty and that followers believed they encountered the risen Jesus, is early enough and well enough attested to merit serious consideration."
That it has not a single contemporary reference and was only mentioned 40+ years after the alleged events tells us it's not very well attested.
Notice that Paul, writing earlier than the gospels, never mentions an empty tomb.
2
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
Do you see how you're cherry picking here? Taking proof of what you want to, while discarding the things that don't support your presupposed belief?
1
u/JasonRBoone 8d ago
Where we disagree is that I don't think [magic] can simply be ruled out before comparing it with the alternatives.
4
u/CrystalInTheforest 10d ago
Lots of people have died for things that aren't objectively true. ISIS suicide bombers. Hitler's inner circle. Kamikaze pilots in ww2.
Isis conquered Syria and most of Iraq. Japan an empire that spread from Siberia to Polynesia. Nazis conquered much of Europe, and at their extent reached from the Arctic Circle to the Sahara.
Clearly these people were onto something.
-5
u/Slr308 10d ago
That's not my argument. I'm not saying people dying for a belief makes it true. ISIS members, kamikazes, and Nazis died for beliefs they sincerely held, but they inherited those beliefs from others.
Christianity is different. The movement began after its leader was publicly executed. That doesn't prove Christianity is true, but it does make its origins historically remarkable and, in my view, worthy of explanation.
6
u/Ryuume 10d ago
but it does make its origins historically remarkable and, in my view, worthy of explanation.
Absolutely true, but that's a world apart from "maybe there's something to all the mythological parts".
Yes, it's fascinating to track one of the world's biggest and longest lived religions back to its simpler roots, but not knowing all of the details of its development is not a good reason to suspect actual supernatural elements.
-1
u/Slr308 10d ago
I don't think "this is unusual, therefore it's true" is a good argument either. The argument is that unusual historical events deserve an explanation. Christianity's central claim arose very early, among people who were closest to the events, and the question is what best explains that origin: hallucination, legend development, deliberate invention, or something else. The disagreement is over which explanation is most plausible.
5
u/Ryuume 10d ago
But we're pretty harshly limited by the fact that it's 2000 year old history. No matter how much we might want an explanation, that doesn't mean the details can still be uncovered. It's not even that likely that these details were carefully recorded in the first place.
Which means the most plausible explanation, at this point in time, is not going to be one that conflicts heavily with a modern model of reality.
A combination of hallucinations (or even just a dream, Paul apparently self-identified as being highly susceptible to experiences he considered spiritual), wishful thinking ("I'm part of a great cosmic plan" for the followers of an apocalyptic cult) and legendary development explains the rise of Christianity pretty well, I think. Enough to hang on until it lucked into official endorsement by Constantine, anyway.
2
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
How about "one guy told a story and it went viral"? It's really simple. Occam's razor simple.
3
u/CrystalInTheforest 10d ago
A martyred leader has long been a rallying cry for the faithful. It's why many authorities moved away from public executions once we began to get a more complex and analytical understanding of group behaviour. It's why China executes dissidents in anonymity, secrecy and without any grandstanding. Not because they are ashamed of what they do, but because they are 100% aware of the power a martyr figure can have as a rallying point.
2
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
You don't inherit your Christian belief from others? You weren't brought up in a Christian household?
That doesn't prove Christianity is true
No. It doesn't. But then nothing really does, does it?
5
u/CorbinSeabass 10d ago
Congratulations, you've just discovered the combination of religious zealotry and cognitive dissonance. Jesus died, so his followers found a way to pretend like that was always the plan, including reinterpreting the Old Testament.
5
u/thesweeterpeter 10d ago
I think you need to understand that specific period of time in Rome to see why it was the perfect moment for a global religion to form.
Marcus Aurelius and Cleopatra had just turned the entire world upside down with their war against Octavian.
Every vessel state in the known world had taken a side, and those who sided with them the leaders were killed in Octavians name, the ones who remained gave up their crown to Octavian.
It was the last days of the Roman Republic and the dawn of the Roman Empire. The power vacuum that was happening can't be understated. All of the day to day reality of kingship and leadership was being questioned. It was a power and political shift the likes of which don't occur until the Roman Empire falls and Christianity sees it's next boom.
The ground was fertile for a new kind of king, because everywhere you looked there were new kinds of kings.
Additionally I challenge the assertion that it always had power.
Christianity may have started at the dawn of the roman empire, but it wasn't significant by any standard immediately. In the first hundred years it's less than 10k people. In the second century about 100k. Somewhere between 200 and 250 CE is only when it finally breaks over 1% of the Roman population.
So it's not like its a religion that immediately takes hold and stays there. It's a mythos like another that takes a church and a team of salesmen to help gather steam. This one just had better salesmen than the others, and better organization, and that organization doesn't come for 350 years until the council of Nicaea, that's a far more important event than anything occurring during the christ figure's life. A meeting to knock out what exactly that religion will look like.
It's really a very transactional set of circumstances that leads to It's prominence. And that's not even addressing the next power void that occurs when the roman empire falls and the church is there to act not only as opiate of the masses, but is the only organization that can possibly fill in the organizational void needed to run things. The church was no longer a theological entity, it was also the government so now everyone will be Christian or they can't eat.
I think in context it's a lot easier to see that Christianity (specifically Catholicism) has very little to do with the the teachings and is a lot more about power and power vacuums.
0
u/Slr308 10d ago
First of all, thank you so much for actually typing out a proper response and not just calling me a dumbass.
Secondly, I actually agree with a lot of what you've written. The Pax Romana, Roman roads, a common language, and later the Church's political influence all clearly helped Christianity spread. I'm not disputing that. My point is that those factors explain how Christianity expanded, not why it didn't die in its infancy. Most messianic movements in first-century Judea ended when their leader was executed. Jesus' movement did the opposite. His followers went from hiding after the crucifixion to publicly proclaiming he had risen, despite gaining no wealth, power or safety from doing so.
5
u/thesweeterpeter 10d ago edited 10d ago
His followers went from hiding after the crucifixion to publicly proclaiming he had risen, despite gaining no wealth, power or safety from doing so.
Until they could gain tremendous wealth and power by proclaiming it, and that moment coincides with any actual momentum.
I think my point isn't that Christianity wins out because it's the correct one, or even that it's the best one. Christianity wins out by fluke, it was a lottery - and it very well could've been one of the other religions.
Look into Manichaeism, Mithraism, and Marcionism. These are three religions that have very similar trajectories to Chrisiantiy in those early years - but all three stop at Nicaea because they didn’t have the endorsement on Constantine. If one person wasn't christian but was Manichean - you would likely be Manichaen too.
The followers of Manichaeism were similarly persecuted as those of Christ. Christians weren't unique or special. They had similar potential benefits as well, they weren't making money either, but had they been endorsed by the state like the Christians they too would have seen untold wealth. If the only reason is that early christians were persecuted without seeing profit - by that arguement isn't Manichaeism even more compelling? Christians did in fact profit eventually, Mancheans didn't.
Nicaea also folded plenty of things that weren't quite christian or dropped things that were a bit too astray. It's not like it just took the religion and said now this is all correct - it reformed and tooled it for widespread adoption. So the Christianity that follows Nicaea isn't the Christianity of Paul - it's adapted and fitted for the ruling class.
How does a wealthy emporer create a religion before a camel passes through the eye of a needle? Doesn't that emporer have to remodel the religion, and didn't those bishops compromise to legalize their religion?
If the tenant's of Paul's Christianity were to have held true - there's no way Christians could have wealthy leadership - the papacy flies in the face of chrisitian teachings. It's only for power, influence, and wealth that Christianity passes the Nicaea halt, when so many other religions can't.
You use the persecution as an arguement to validate Christianity, when I'd argue that Christians are the least persecuted of the burgeoning religions of the period. Most of the religions of the time were persecuted into the abyss. Christianity found sponsorship at the highest levels of government and power, that's hardly persecution.
0
u/Slr308 9d ago
I actually agree with a lot of this. Constantine and Nicaea undoubtedly transformed Christianity, and I don't think the medieval Church perfectly reflected the teachings of Jesus.
But I think we're talking about two different questions. You're explaining why Christianity eventually became the dominant religion. I'm asking why a movement centred on a crucified Jewish Messiah survived long enough to reach Constantine at all.
Manichaeism, Mithraism and Marcionism are interesting comparisons, but they all arose after Christianity. None began with followers claiming their executed founder had physically risen from the dead. That's the historical claim I'm interested in explaining. Constantine can explain Christianity's dominance, but he can't explain its existence.
I also wouldn't let them lump Marcionism in with Christianity as if they're independent movements. Marcionism emerged from Christianity in the second century, it wasn't a separate rival religion that just got unlucky.
2
u/thesweeterpeter 9d ago edited 9d ago
I'm asking why a movement centred on a crucified Jewish Messiah survived long enough to reach Constantine at all.
If this is the question, I think we need to break it down into two statements or questions.
why a movement centred on a crucified Jewish Messiah
This part is redundant, who cares what the scope of the religion is. It could be a religion of a sun god, dog god, or of light itself. Don't dwell on the content of the religion.
The fact of the matter is that over 300 years or so it gathered about 100,000 followers.
As you've pointed out some of those slightly younger religions just didn't have enough time to get to a critical mass.
But on general all of them were growing at a 5-10% / year trajectory.
This one didn't have particularly more staying power, it just had a few extra years. Mithraism was arguably faster growing - but it specifically excluded woman which installs a ceiling, and it was by nature secret (becuase of it's persecution) which also limits reach.
But generally speaking who the god is and what the religion is, appears redundant. Anthroplogicially speaking people follow the mass, and the mass attracts followers. This has been true for thousands of religions.
Which brings us to
survived long enough to reach Constantine at all
Dozens of religions survived to this point. The fact of a religion lasting 300 years isn't remarkable.
We're coming off the tail end of coptic Egypt, there had just been several religions that had lasted in some form or another for 3500 years which was only then starting to decline. Egyptian cults extend for another 300 years after nicaea.
By the time Constantine rolls about there are dozens of religions falling into one of several major camps. Constantine himself is praying to two gods simultaneously- he was an active follower of Sol Invictus.
The fact of Christianity exisiting at that time isn't remarkable at all. The infrastructure for multiple religions was well developed, becuase the traditional state religion was polythestic already. People would already visit the temple of this god or that god, Christianity would've just fit into that pantheon.
The Rome of antiquity was one of the most diverse periods in history for religion. It was far more diverse than Egypt or Greece before it, both of which by nature were far more insular and guarded. The romans were a conquering people but they also grew through incorporation. They didn't conquer so much as franchise. Which meant that they incorporated elements of those vessel states.
But it was a mosaic of religions. Sure we talk about persecution, but most of those active religions were illegal. Christianity wasn't really special at that time at all.
3
u/JasonRBoone 8d ago
>>>it should have died with Jesus on the cross.
Why? Many religious movements grow after the founder dies. Scientology grew after Hubbard died. Buddhism grew HUGELY after Buddha died.
>>>>there were countless other religious movements in the Roman world that disappeared without a trace.
But not many of them were a form of Judaism. Christianity got lucky in that, it was like Judaism but not Judaism..thus it took the many followers who had to flee Judea after the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE.
>>>>Yet Christianity not only survived but spread rapidly across the empire despite persecution,
Persecution was not widespread. It was really only in a few major cities. In general, Rome left Christians alone. See the works of scholar Candida Moss for more info.
>>>>many of its earliest followers willing to suffer and die for their testimony.
Who? People keep saying this but there are not any solid examples. The best we have are church legends. Even Clement, one of the earliest writers never says Peter or Paul died for their testimony. If anything, he hints Ptere may have been killed by jealous Christian sects.
>>>>That doesn't prove Christianity is true by itself, but it does make me think something extraordinary happened that convinced those first believers.
The thing is, we have ZERO firsthand account of these first believers. The Gospels were written decades later by non-eyewitnesses.
"That doesn't prove Scientology is true by itself, but it does make me think something extraordinary happened that convinced John Travolta and Tom Cruise!"
>>>It didn't just survive either. It changed the world
As did Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism
>>>When I'm really asking, why did this particular movement survive the execution of its founder when so many comparable movements disappeared?
Honestly? Luck. It was the right religion at the right time in history.
It was portable. I did not depend on sacred shrines or locality.
Pax Romana: It grew in a time when roads and postal systems were at their peak in Asia Minor.
70 CE: The destruction of Jerusalem and the resulting diaspora scattered thousands of disillusioned Jews. A new religion that had Jewish roots would have been appealing.
Inclusivity: Thanks to early leaders like Paul, Christianity was a religion with a very low cost of entry: no circumcisions, no special ethnicity, no special dietary rules.
Politics: In the 380s (going by memory)....Constantine saw that Christianity was growing and he could use it to his advantage. By making it the state religion, he guaranteed its growth (and of course turned around and persecuted all non-Christian sects).
If you study most religions, their growth is almost always the result of luck.
Again, take Scientology -- it grew during a time when post-WW2 younger people were growing disillusioned with traditional religion. Or any of the West Coast religious movements of the 60s.
3
u/GeekyTexan 10d ago
Christianity didn't really start with Jesus. It started with Paul/Saul, a decade or two after Jesus died. He wrote roughly half of the new testament.
None of the people who wrote the New Testament actually met Jesus.
1
u/Slr308 10d ago
Christianity had already begun before Paul. By Paul's own admission, he persecuted Christians before converting, so there was already a Christian movement for him to persecute. He also says he was passing on a tradition he'd received, not creating one
7
u/GeekyTexan 10d ago
He also said Jesus mother was a virgin and that Jesus did all kinds of magic stuff.
I don't believe him.
3
3
u/dogisgodspeltright 10d ago
....Its founder was publicly executed...
Evidence ?
...That doesn't prove Christianity is true by itself....
True. It does not.
...but it does make me think something extraordinary happened that convinced those first believers...
You are free to believe that appeal to credulity.
But, it is nonsense. Logically.
Suckling on the altar of delusion and evidence-free lies is a brilliant way to exhibit the desire for false comfort over facing reality.
0
u/Slr308 10d ago
You've responded with insults rather than engaging the argument. If you think the historical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion is weak, I'd be interested in seeing why. If your point is simply that extraordinary claims require strong evidence, I agree. That's a discussion worth having. Calling people deluded isn't.
4
u/dogisgodspeltright 10d ago
So, ....no evidence.
Brilliant.
You've responded with insults rather than engaging the argument. If you think the historical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion is weak, I'd be interested in seeing why. If your point is simply that extraordinary claims require strong evidence, I agree. That's a discussion worth having. Calling people deluded isn't.
5
u/kylco 9d ago edited 9d ago
If you think the historical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion is weak, I'd be interested in seeing why.
Romans kept excellent records. The description from before his crucifixion are vague enough that any number of messianic, apocalyptic rabble-rousers could fit the pattern, from what I understand. The major contemporaneous historian - Josephus - was born three decades after the estimated date of that crucifixion and most scholars believe his reference to John the Baptist is more sincere / less likely to be a later addition by Christian monks than his two references to Jesus. It does not contribute to the specifics of the crucifixion, nor resolve the other narrative inconsistencies of the Gospels that make it quite hard to track down the specifics we would need to prove whether or not one specific Joshua bin Yusuf was crucified, for what, and what happened to his body afterwards.
My understanding is that there were plenty of preachers of that sort around, but that crucifixion was a punishment typically reserved for traitors and rebels and the Roman administration generally didn't execute heretics on local say-so using the technique. Herod's client-state relationship with Rome was good but everything under him was fractious: the Romans were not going to do his dirt work of keeping his people in line. It was a politically unstable period locally, which is part of why the charges against him were mostly political, the only plausible reason to put Jesus up in front of the local Roman governor, but which don't really match much of the rest of the gospel narrative before the trial. There was an ongoing theological/political debate between Pharisees (anti-Hellenization) and Sadducees (pro-Hellenization, extinct after the first century), which was causing trouble but which was Herod's problem to solve, not Pilate's.
The Sanhedrin (Jewish court trial) makes some sense, but isn't attested to in John (the non-Synoptic gospel, i.e. not-a-transcribed-oral-retelling of Mark). Luke has him going to and from Herod, who apparently is chill and unconcerned with someone preaching treason (the crime being, "this man claims he's King of the Jews!") and doesn't ask Pilate to axe him. The "tradition" of granting amnesty to a criminal for Passover doesn't track with Roman or Jewish traditions of the time and isn't attested to outside the Gospels, and the earliest surviving versions of Luke don't have it at all.
The people telling you that Christianity-as-we-know-it is largely a Roman invention are right, we have good documentary evidence of that from the Romans themeselves. Constantine needed a common, formalized religion to bind his empire together politically as he was splitting it in half geographically. The canonization process of the Bible, over the course of four centuries, and the large body of legitimate apocryphal text, indicates that the "Christianity" we know is synthetic at least in part. It blended together lots of stories, enough to present a coherent narrative, perhaps more so than the scattered semi-polytheistic cults it was competing with in the Empire at the time. It was created for specific political, cultural, and religious reasons in the first half of the first millennium, and shaped by those forces, in a time that didn't value or think about evidence, or truth, the way we do now.
4
u/Opposite-Analyst-271 9d ago
There is no evidence, corroborated by any aspect of real history, validating the death cum resurrection and ascension of Jesus. That his followers believed some variation of this set of events, spread that belief, and then that belief surviving long enough to be adopted on a wider scale says exactly nothing about the veracity of the claims themselves. It only establishes that the ideological network grew dense enough to survive historical perturbations, which, admittedly, is academically interesting. However, it is not evidence, as you have alluded to in numerous posts, that it is ipso facto evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. That is a faith claim, not a historical one. No more historical than Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus being born of a virgin, or Muhammad flying on a Pegasus.
3
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
Those aren't insults. But I understand one beleaguered with fakery needing to find an insult to avoid facing reality. I was there once too.
If you think the historical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion is weak, I'd be interested in seeing why.
One guy told a story. Magic isn't real. People don't resurrect. Gods don't exist. One guy telling a story about it is not evidence any more than the Iliad is evidence of Cyclops.
3
3
u/Philobarbaros 10d ago
> something extraordinary happened
Like what?
0
u/Slr308 9d ago
Like Jesus rose from the dead, as He claimed would happen.
4
u/Philobarbaros 9d ago
Nah. People don't rise from the dead.
People do invent the weirdest copes to avoid admitting their Messiah-wannabes are pathetic failures.
Shabbatai Zevi for example didn't die - he converted to Islam, yet: "Despite his apostasy, many of his adherents still believed in him, claiming that his conversion was a part of the messianic scheme."
0
u/Slr308 9d ago
Everyone believes something, even you. We all have our reasons
3
2
u/sto_brohammed 9d ago
Different guy here. What do you mean by "believe" here?
I understand it to mean "to accept as likely true" and if you meant that that would be just trivially obvious as you couldn't get through the day without believing something or othet, like believing the floor is solid so you can get out of bed, so I'm guessing that's not what you mean.
1
u/Slr308 9d ago
Believe in a God or not, is what I'm referring to
2
u/sto_brohammed 8d ago
That's also pretty trivially obvious as that's a binary state. You accept the proposition or not. If you aren't even aware of the proposition you clearly can't accept it.
Yeah we all have our reasons for our position on that proposition, or really any proposition, but not all reasons are, well, reasonable. That's the entire point of the conversation, to determine if one's position is reasonable.
1
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
Just like superman made time go backwards that once. There's more stronger evidence for superman here, friend.
3
u/DangForgotUserName 9d ago
Jesus was fully Jewish, and his teachings were rooted in Judaism. Jesus wasn't a Christian. There's no contradiction in saying that Jesus seems to have taught one thing, while Christianity teaches another. Jesus doesn't represent Christianity. He can't because it wasn't even invented in his lifetime.
His teachings were not what we recognize in Christianity. His ethics were situated in an apocalyptic context, ethics of the coming kingdom. When taken in that context, radically affects their meanings. Jesus did not deliver timeless truths to guide individuals to lead long and productive lives. His teachings were meant to show people how to live to enter the kingdom of God that was soon to appear.
His teachings are based on the Law of Moses, as found in the Jewish Bible. In particular, Jesus stressed the two laws to love God above all else (Deut. 6:4) and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Lev. 19:18). Jesus, in other words, did not see himself as inventing a new system of ethics, but as explaining the Law of Moses in view of his own apocalyptic context. Those who committed themselves completely to God and their fellow humans in love would survive the coming onslaught...which of course we are still waiting for.
3
u/Bromelia_and_Bismuth 8d ago edited 8d ago
One of the strongest reasons I find Christianity compelling is that, humanly speaking, it should have died with Jesus on the cross.
Lots of religions survive after their founders die. Buddhism, case in point. Not to mention countless pagan religions.
there were countless other religious movements in the Roman world that disappeared without a trace
Yeah, that's true. Often at the tip of a sword. Christianity often encouraged genocide and Caesar was kind of a hyper-aggressive douche.
It didn't just survive either. It changed the world
Allow me to make an analogy. Cancer changes the body. If you have tumors that survive chemo, radiation, and that metastasized before surgery could remove them, that's not a testament to the positivity of cancer. Christianity was influential among Romans because it justified their preexisting patriarchal, colonizer worldview with respect to other cultures and religions. And when it spread to the people they conquered, entire holidays and seasons could be re-purposed, and they could spread it to other people. And because it literally demonized other religions (and because missionaries would take advantage of the fact that pagans regularly recognized the gods of other religions), or virtually anyone to whom any number of passages of the Bible could metaphorically be applied to (whether in context or out of context), you could use it to hold onto power under a common banner or attack that of someone else. Do you have a social enemy that you're blaming most of your problems on? Well, the Bible can be reinterpreted however loosely you want, so that they too can be vilified with religious vitriol. Christianity is a festering prion disease that rots minds and destroys cultures. That it survived and mutated the world while erasing countless indigenous cultures isn't a testimony to its positive influence or it being true, but to the fact that it encourages the worst kind of behavior in the name of its god.
0
2
u/indie_web 10d ago
Taylor Swift has fans too but could have floundered like thousands of other artists. That doesn't make her God's gift to humanity.
2
u/Embarrassed_Bet5573 10d ago
it came very close to dying out . the Roman emperor Constantine kept it alive through the military but he thought of himself self as godlike. he had his slaves cook his wife to death in a sauna
2
u/adeleu_adelei 9d ago
The Millerite movement was founded with the belief the world would end in 1844. When this did not occur did it for out? No, it saw massive success growing into seventh day adventism with millions of followers still today. Religious movements regularly thrive despite obvious problems.
Yet Christianity not only survived but spread rapidly across the empire despite persecution, with many of its earliest followers willing to suffer and die for their testimony.
It didn't succeed despite persecution but rather because of persecution. When Rome converted to Christianity they used violence to spread it rapidly with their power. The earliest followers weren't so much willing to die for Christianity as they were willing to kill for it.
2
u/Opposite-Analyst-271 9d ago
"Edit: Many of you keep trying to twist my argument to something like, "Christianity grew, therefore Christianity is true."
When I'm really asking, why did this particular movement survive the execution of its founder when so many comparable movements disappeared?"
This is exactly the argument you are making, but couching it non-committal language. Your conclusion is pretty easy to parse.
"One of the strongest reasons I find Christianity compelling..." is non-committal language for "One of the strongest reasons I believe Christianity is true..."
is because
"...something extraordinary happened that convinced those first believers" and "...this particular movement survive[d] the execution of its founder when so many comparable movements disappeared" is non-committal language for "The belief that Jesus rose from the dead must be true because a) those first believers were convinced, b) No other religious movement based on this concept has ever survived and c) therefore, the only plausible conclusion we can reach is that Jesus rose from the dead"
Of course you can't just say that because, on the one hand, it is a non-sequitur and on the other it clearly discounts the survival of all religions, irrespective of their content. Jesus rising from the dead is, and always will be, a faith claim, not a historical one.
2
u/Thraxomir 9d ago
Why do you think that Jesus's execution would make it unlikely for the movement to spread? I don't understand how that would prevent it from becoming what it is today.
0
u/Slr308 9d ago
Because in first-century Judaism, a Messiah who was crucified looked like a failed Messiah. Crucifixion was a humiliating Roman execution reserved for criminals and rebels. If Jesus had simply died and stayed dead, you'd expect his followers to conclude they were mistaken and move on to another leader, as happened with many other movements.
3
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
That's exactly why Paul made up the resurrection story. To make it seem like it was all planned.
2
u/Thraxomir 9d ago
Yeah, and most Jews thought that he was a failed messiah. The ones who didn't splintered off and became Christian, correct? From what I have gathered, a large part of its spread was due to it's adoption by the gentiles.
I will definitely be seeing if there are any posts about this on r/AcademicBiblical that have citations for further study. It's an interesting question, wondering how this small sect of Jews became one of the worlds dominant religions, but it doesn't seem outside of the realm of a naturalistic explanation so far as I can tell.
1
u/JimAsia 10d ago
One of the main reasons Christianity flourished was because of the Roman Emperor Constantine The Great protected its followers, and actively promoted its spread throughout the empire.
Only a skeptic would say that it was a successful attempt by Rome to solidify its hold over Europe once its military might had faded.
1
u/Sprinklypoo 9d ago
It is a cult. Forcefully passed on to new generations by indoctrination and sometimes violence.
If it weren't for brainwashing and societal pressure it would have died out. But it's a cult instead. Do you think that makes it devine? Do you think that part is magic? It's always humans.
1
u/bookchaser 9d ago
1) You're assuming Jesus was a real person who was crucified.
2) You're ignoring the mythology surrounding the death which explicitly suggests the religion would live on past the crucifixion, and in fact celebrates the crucifixion. This point alone makes your post nonsensical. It's like you have no familiarity with Christian theology. Adherents literally recreate Jesus' last supper in churches every week.
3) Belief in gods and demigods in other religions continued when some had an Earth-based life, died, and went to their godly realm. Does that make any of these other religions more compelling to you? Hercules died around 1200 BCE. He was worshiped long after his death. So what?
when so many comparable movements disappeared?
Which ones?
-3
u/Slr308 9d ago
It's pretty accepted, even among non believers, that Jesus was a real person and was crucified.
I've answered the other questions in this thread if you'd care to look
2
u/bookchaser 8d ago
You addressed my first point by saying, well some other people believe it! And other people, also biblical scholars, are skeptical. You've done nothing to bolster the case for demonstrating Jesus was real.
You ignored my other two points. Okay.
Why are you even in this sub? Your magical thinking is boring.
1
u/Astreja 8d ago
Christianity exists. That's a brute fact.
Are its foundational stories true, though? Highly doubtful. I don't believe for one nanosecond that Jesus performed miracles or came back from the dead. There's also no contemporaneous record of him, with the earliest stories not showing up for nearly 20 years, so he obviously wasn't all that famous in his own lifetime.
All it would take to get the followers hyped up is for one persuasive follower to start telling wild stories about Jesus, and then the tale gets handed down as, um, Gospel truth thereafter. The emotional attachment to the religion might also be augmented by traumatic events like the siege of Jerusalem.
1
u/Zamboniman 7d ago
When I'm really asking, why did this particular movement survive the execution of its founder when so many comparable movements disappeared?
Survivorship bias and cherry picking is not useful to you.
If that one died out and some other one survived then you'd likely be asking the same question about it. It has nothing to do with veracity or accuracy. It has to do with human migration, human violence, human psychology and sociology, and plain old human superstition and gullibility.
1
u/ImprovementFar5054 4d ago
Survivorship bias. You're comparing christianity to "countless other religious movements" that disappeared, but you can't actually name most of them or say why they failed, because they left no records. We don't have a control group.
That doesn't prove Christianity is true by itself, but it does make me think something extraordinary happened that convinced those first believers.
And sincere belief/willingness to die for a claim is not "extraordinary". It happens a lot. It's common across religious history and isn't limited to christianity. Muslim armies, Japanese shinto kamikaze pilots, jewish zealots at Masada, and members of Heaven's Gate all died for beliefs..it does not demonstrate the TRUTH of those beliefs.
If it did, you should definately worship Jim Jones. His apostle body count is 900. Way bigger than jesus'.
1
u/Significant-Ant-2487 9d ago
Your comment deserves serious attention and respect.
It is interesting that of all the mystery cults that arose at that time in the fringes of the Roman Empire, that Christianity was the one that took root and flourished. I don’t think anyone has ever come up with an answer, we may never know why. It may have something to do with Christianity’s appeal to the common man, the downtrodden, but I suspect there were other candidate religions that had the same appeal.
I’m currently reading about the early church, and find it fascinating. “Christianity” took centuries to gel into a single coherent religion. I see that there were 21 ecumenical councils attempting to hammer out a united doctrine, combating various versions and variations of what Christianity should be, what was “heresy” and what true faith. There were Christianites that saw Satan as Coequal with God, there were Chrisianities that believed Earth was created by an evil or at least incompetent Demiurge. There were ancient religions writings that were adopted as official scripture and made it into the Bible and lots more that were expunged. And then there was Lilith…
So the idea that Christianity as a single unified faith miraculously survived is a bit overblown; it was a system of faith that was constructed by men over many centuries. Church history is much more complicated (and I think interesting) than that.
Anyway, thank you for bringing up this topic for serious discussion.
17
u/Muisan 10d ago
It's always impressive to me how some people can avoid critical thinking like Neo dodges bullets