Did they at that time? Remember that Mohammed was 500 years later, and operating in the power vacuum of the decaying Roman Empire.
Possibly. This particular statement, I will buy if may is used instead of must: If your argument is correct, then all of these religions may [del]must[/del] therefore have a factual basis to sustain that fervor.
Fervor is one thing, but fervor to the point of martyrdom is less common.
Delusion? Maybe. Hallucinogens? Possibly. But remember that Jesus also appeared to the guards, and others of his friends who were not disciples.
I don’t see the significance of the distinction. Are you suggesting that religious fervor in the First Century was proof of a religion’s validity but religious fervor in the Seventh Century was not proof of a religion’s validity?
But if you concede the may, then you’re also conceding the may not. If a religion full of fervor may not be a religion with a factual basis, then there’s no argument to be made.
And while fervor to the point of martyrdom is a pretty high level of fervor, it’s not unique to Christianity.
Cite?
Barack Obama visited me in my house yesterday. Michelle was with him and so was Joe Biden. A bunch of my friends - Tim, Bob, Ann, and Linda - got a chance to meet them while they were here.
So I’m saying Obama was in my house. How many witnesses support this story? Eight?
No, you have one witness statement; mine. I mentioned other people in my statement but you don’t have any independent statements from them.
With regards to the resurrection of Jesus, we have four witness statements. Not bad, but we cannot count everyone mentioned in these statements as a separate statement in itself.
Yes if I allow for may I know full well I allow for may not. And I do.
Guys, we cannot rectify faith-based tenets with fact-based arguments. Faith and facts are by their very nature irreconcilable. And as a man of faith, my logical side sometimes struggles with that. Much like Spock in ST:TOS sometimes struggling with logic vs emotion.
It is my personal belief that any Christian who does not have doubts, who does not question some miracles we believe to have happened, to not have any doubts at all is bordering on delusion. Do not mistake strong faith, which I have, with blind faith, which is deluded thinking. That’s me and my take on things.
Yes I know this is GQ. I cannot and will not build a logical, factual argument for my faith and the fundamental basis for Christianity - specifically, Jesus rising three days after being crucified. Nobody can. Again, as Thomas Aquinas said,
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.
To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
Faith is a gift. Not all have it. I am an engineer with degrees in applied mathematics and computer science who excelled in logic. Maybe that is my curse, trying to rectify faith with fact. In my (now) decades of bible study I have not encountered reasonable evidence against what can only reasonably be described as miracles.
The OP asked how From small band of Jesus’ followers to Christianity, how? Specifically,
The best way I can explain that is that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to many for several days afterwards: his disciples, his followers, and others including the guards at the tomb. These appearances led the disciples from fear to fervor. Delusion? Hallucinogens? Or did the resurrection actually, factually happen? All of these are conjectures for which no factual basis exists.
If the mods will rule that my argument for the resurrection has no place in GQ, then I submit that arguments for delusion and hallucinogens also have no place in GQ.
As for Jesus appearing to the guards at the tomb, my cite is Matthew chapter 28. See verses 4, and 11-15.
From the NIV translation, and the rest of my post is a direct quote from bibleGateway.com (v4 emphasis mine). Remember, these are trained guards.
(Matthew 28 - Jesus Has Risen - After the Sabbath, at - Bible Gateway):
Jesus Has Risen
28
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
[sup]2[/sup]There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. [sup]3[/sup]His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. [sup]4[/sup]The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
[sup]5[/sup]The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. [sup]6[/sup]He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. [sup]7[/sup]Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
[sup]8[/sup]So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. [sup]9[/sup]Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. [sup]10[/sup]Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
The Guards’ Report
[sup]11[/sup]While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. [sup]12[/sup]When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, [sup]13[/sup]telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ [sup]14[/sup]If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” [sup]15[/sup]So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
The Great Commission
[sup]16[/sup]Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. [sup]17[/sup]When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. [sup]18[/sup]Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [sup]19[/sup]Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [sup]20[/sup]and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Without being a student of religion, and going only on my observations, this is my theory (my word, yes, by A. Elk).
Christianity was really a political/social movement wrapped in the magical religious trappings of the time. It not only acknowledged the unwashed masses, but was specifically aimed at them, and gave them hope in a way that no other religion or cultural institution did up till then.
Advocating love and kindness to the downtrodden and claiming that they shall inherit the Earth must have been powerful messages to commoners at the bottom of the social structure. Since they made up the bulk of populations everywhere, it isn’t hard to see why the Christian message spread far and wide. As I see it, Christianity was the first socialist (small s) movement, as we’d call it today.
You said that Jesus appeared to the guards.
I don’t see the part where Jesus appeared to the guards.
I see the part where someone, who is there, tells the guards that Jesus isn’t there.
You then relate that people other than the guards later saw Jesus. You also relate how the guards are perfectly willing to lie about events at the tomb – including what happened to Jesus’ corpse – for a straight cash bribe. You also relate how yet other folks claim that Jesus’ corpse was stolen. You relate lots of stuff, but I don’t see where you got around to the part where “Jesus also appeared to the guards”.
Here, I’ll quote you:
I don’t remember that.
Actually, no, with regard to the resurrection of Jesus we don’t have any witness statements. None of the four evangelists claim to have witnessed the resurrection, or to have had an epiphany - an encounter with the risen Jesus - themselves. Likewise Paul doesn’t claim to have witnessed the resurrection, and the only encounter with the risen Jesus that he claims is a mystical one - in a vision on the road to Damascus.
Furthermore, neither Paul nor any of the evangelists claim that anyone witnessed the resurrection. The gospels all offer, not resurrection stories, but empty tomb stories.
So, first person evidence for the resurrection event itself is completely lacking. Nor do we have any hearsay evidence for the resurrection event itself - nobody claims to know of anybody who witnessed the event. What we have is hearsay evidence of epiphanies - writers naming people who are said to have encountered the risen Jesus. We have several writers who do this, and multiple people are named, often by more than one writer.
On the one hand, this gives the impression that the writers are being honest - they are carefully recording the evidence that they know of. If you were going to make up the resurrection story out of whole cloth, you’d probably make up better evidence than is offered in the Gospels and the letter of Paul. Even if you were going to embroider an existing resurrection story, you’d probably embroider it with something more than empty tombs and unreliable female witnesses.
So, I think the gospels, etc, aren’t inventing the resurrection; they are recording - and recording quite carefully - a belief which is already current. But the evidence which they record as the foundation for this belief is, um, not as good as you might like it to be.
I think the first episode of Extra History: Early Christian Schisms covers some of this. Possible Part 2, as well.
Interesting, entertaining. Arius / Aryus, Constantine, Caecilianus, Donatus and Donatists, Ignatius of Antioch, Docetism, and traditors… things to consider. It’s late, I’ll try to catch this tomorrow.
Even this is shaky – there is significant scholarly research suggesting even those four are not independent, but rather the later writers used the earlier as source material, tweaking and adding to it to support their own goals.
I don’t want to risk a banning or a warning. And I don’t want to insult Bullitt, either. But this strikes me as intriguing and directly on point.
Bullitt explained that he’s “an engineer with degrees in applied mathematics and computer science who excelled in logic” and has engaged in “decades of bible study”. Bullitt told us, in an equally matter-of-fact manner, to “remember that Jesus also appeared to the guards,” presumably because that’s how Bullitt remembers it.
And when asked for a cite, Bullitt provided a quote which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t involve Jesus appearing to the guards.
If I’m right, then we’ve just now witnessed the event in question.
Jesus doesn’t appear to the guards in that story – and yet someone who hears that story later recalls it as Jesus appearing to the guards; even while copy-and-pasting the written report, he still recalls it as Jesus appearing to the guards.
And, again, this is a highly-educated guy with advanced degrees and decades of study; this isn’t someone who sees an angel in a dream and spends the rest of his life acting as if he’s seen an angel for real; this is someone who can rationally analyze documents instead of half-remembering a word-of-mouth conversation. And still he tells people that Jesus appeared to the guards!
So what did folks back then do? Did they, upon getting told nothing of the sort, say that Jesus had appeared to various people? Did they, upon not getting told that Jesus had done various things, mention that Jesus had done said things? Did they, without a particular miracle to remember reports of, sincerely believe they’d heard reports of the miracle in question?
We can’t now watch them play telephone then. But we can see it happen right now; we can see it happen in this very thread.
You’re right about the story changing over time. I have one detail to add. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does NOT say that “Christ rose from the dead”, rather he says that “Christ has been raised from the dead”. Paul is very clear that God the Father is the one who did the raising and Jesus the Christ was on the receiving end of that action. Much later, the story changed subtly to say that Jesus raised himself from the dead. But Paul didn’t say it that way.
Ahh okay, thanks for clearing that up Little Nemo and The Other Waldo Pepper. In my haste (religious fervor, perhaps?) I came across a reference stating who the resurrected Jesus appeared to that included the guards and that referenced Matthew 28. My mistake, clearly it says an angel of the Lord appeared to them, not Jesus.
And about Jesus being raised from the dead and not He Himself raising Him up, where does it say He raised Himself up? In our creeds we pray that He was raised, not the other way.
Lastly, didn’t the resurrected Jesus appear to John in his gospel? Isn’t John a first-hand witness?
Re: The angel in Matthew. OTOH: Mark says “young man”, Luke has two young men in glowing robes, John mentions no one. There are also notable differences as to who witnessed the open tomb.
It’s hard to say. The Gospels are written almost entirely as third person accounts (if I recall correctly, there are some passages in Luke that are written in the first person and one passage in John).
So we don’t have a statement that says something like “Hello, my name is Matthew and I’m writing down what happened that time I saw Jesus after he had died.” What we have are statements like “Jesus then appeared to the disciples after his death.”
Is that a statement from somebody who is saying he was there and he personally saw Jesus? Or is that a statement from somebody who was told that Jesus had appeared to the disciples after his death? Is it a statement by Matthew, by somebody who heard it from Matthew, or by somebody who heard it happened to Matthew?
It’s unlikely that John wrote the Gospel. It seems to be aware of his death by natural causes and it states that it is based on his testimony, not written by him.
Not that shaky - the scholarly research still suggests four independent sources - Mark, Q (now lost but reflected in Mt and Lk), the Fourth Evangelist and Paul.