Ahh, but that was my question, wasn’t it? If he were resurrected and then standing before you, eating with you, wouldn’t that be convincing? Take it as a hypothetical question, and answer it as such.
Moderator Note
echo7tango, this is basically witnessing. Let’s keep it out of General Questions. Your personal faith is irrelevant to this question.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The monotheistic sun god of Ankhaten (father of Tut, husband of Nefertiti) is seen by some as a way for him to toss out the existing temples establishment and seize back power to himself. Regardless, not long after he died the old order reasserted itself. The traditional sun god Ra was just one of dozens of gods with hundreds of manifestations in the Egyptian religion. It even accomodated the pharoahs, and later the Hellenic Ptolemys and the Roman emperors, as the offspring of the gods and gods in their own right… nothing monotheistic about it after that brief close encounter with Aten the only god over 3000 years ago.
Sure it would (assuming I had also got to watch him being crucified to death, and was totally convinced that he had really died), but that has nothing to do with what this thread is about. The question is, how did the eleven or twelve who originally saw it* manage to convince anybody else that it had happened. I would not have believed them if they had told me. I doubt if you would have, either.
Actually, I am not sure, but I do not think that the Bible ever says that Jesus ate with anyone after the resurrection. (The Last Supper was before the crucifixion, of course.)
One thing I do know is that the Bible says that the disciples who saw Jesus resurrected were not immediately inspired to go out and spread the word, as you suggest. They remained in hiding until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended on them.
*Actually a couple more than that I guess: Mary Magdalene and maybe one or two other women, depending on which Gospel you believe.
Indeed if you’re going to make the argument that the speed of which it spread and it longevity is proof that Christianity has to be divinely inspired then you should probably convert to Islam.
Islam conquered and converted vast areas to become the dominant and ruling religion within 70 years while it took Christianity 380 years to do the same.
I think the key is the coherent, organized and single message. It answered people’s questions about how to live, and what the reason (reward) was for being a good person.
Unlike the roman pantheon tradition and legends that seems to be more a mish-mash of soap opera episodes than moral guidance, Christianity was a coherent message with internal logic and all the church heirarchy (give or take a few heretical offshoots) were all playing off the same playbook.
It taught that by joining the church you were halfway to Paradise, and by following the church’s teachings you were guaranteed that reward. Beats hearing about the head honcho raping swans.
Luke 24:42-43
42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
Yes, it would. But it doesn’t really explain the spread of Christianity. Jesus reportedly only appeared to a handful or people after his death. So this explanation doesn’t work for the millions of other Christians who didn’t see him resurrected.
It is not at all clear that Christianity did have a coherent or clear message, or was very organized, in its early decades, and perhaps not really until the Council of Nicaea. There were certainly a lot of competing, contradictory, gospels, and other Christian writings, in circulation, most of which did not make it into the Bible when it was compiled (very much later).
OK.
They still went into hiding after the resurrection and ascension, though, and did not start preaching until the Holy Spirit descended on them at Pentecost (that is in Acts, somewhere).
Thanks so much. As an American, I have not been exposed to Christianity. It sounds fascinating and I am glad you told us all about it. I like how you explained it: we know it’s true because there is a whole book written about it by people who thought it was true. This makes it very different from all those fake religions. They also have books of course, but they are not true. Let’s face it, given a choice between a religion that’s true and one that is not. I’ll choose the true one any day.
Contd:
I’m particularly glad that the Bible is historically accurate. Trying to learn all those different time periods is hard: Triassic, Pleistocene, Ordovician, and a bunch more tongue twisters. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday is much easier: just 7 of them and they cover the entire origin of the universe. And that is with God taking Sunday off! Imagine what he could have done with one more day: maybe gotten rid of mosquitoes or something!!
Yes and it needs to be noted that it was the Roman Emperor constantine who basically forced the issue, summoned the bishops and organised the way they voted on a unified uniform theology ruled by Rome.
Constantine was a pragmatic flip-flopper when it came to religions, he adopted several throughout his life and printed coins with both Christian and Mithraic symbols on each side. It was politically useful to adopt Christianity and then organise it and control it from Rome.
You have the Sassanids to thank for that. They at times actively oppressed Christian (and Buddhists) seeing them, not totally unreasonably as a Roman fifth column.
In fact, when I think of religious wars, I think this is the Ur-Example.
On a related note, I wonder if Christianity would have become as large or been seen as distinct from Judaism, if the Titus had not gone on that vandalising (no pun intended) trip to Judea in 70 AD?
I also wonder if the fact that Mithraism was originally Persian played a role in its lack of eventual success. Adopting your greatest enemies religion is not usually something that is advisable
Wives also serve as vectors of culture: people with power are more likely to marry a girl from a little farther away, and if she brings in a new religion, it gets exposure.
There may have beenvarious different and mutually exclusive points of view about the overall nature of the Christian doctrine in the early days, and also disagreement over the extent and power of whoever thought they were in charge of the religion - but the central message was generally clear, thanks to Paul, and the majority of the core source material and beliefs were similar.
The key was the message that anyone could have paradise in the afterlife, and would rise again at the final judgement to take their rightful place there. Compare that to the mix of bizarre legends of the Roman gods collected over the years - basically, a continuing soap opera with no particular moral compass or guidance, just the message that those omnipotent beings up in the clouds were as screwed up as mere mortals.
Plus, never underestimate the appeal of an anti-establishment movement. We see roughly the same thing in the Reformation. The entrenched, privileged and corrupt church heirarchy, living off the people’s taxes and overruling the temporal authority at times, probably as much as any dogmatic disagreement helped instigate a revolt and the spread of protestantism in northern Europe.
Yeah. Funny! 
You’re welcome - any time. Gotta keep things simple, right?
Early Christianity was essentially a doomsday cult, wasn’t it?
They believed the end of the world was nigh, and I would wager that the erosion of the Roman Empire was seen as evidence of such a thing. Imagine, the greatest empire in the world, one that lasted centuries, waning drastically in those last 3.
Combine that with a message that said to the poor and enslaved (the vast majority of the population in ancient Rome) that they would be in paradise once it did end… pretty compelling stuff for a bunch of ignorant, superstitious people in poverty or subjugated, no?
your timing is off a bit. Paul preached that the second coming was supposed to happen in his lifetime, around 70AD. At that time The Roman Empire was still growing, it’s reached its greatest extent in 117AD under Trajan.