You’re citing an inferential mathematical model made by Rodney Stark which is not based on actual evidence, but upon assumptions about growth patterns. he takes his starting numbers from the New Testament itself, which makes the whole thing circular.
Stark also does not say that was a minimum number, but a maximum number. He says it “could not have been more” than that number.
Furthermore, there is no definition of “Christian” here, so exactly what does that mean?
I would more analogise it like: In 2000 years will people be debating whether there really was a Clark Kent? I see Jesus the same way I see King Arthur, Hercules, Beowulf, and even Superman. He’s a legend, made up by people who needed a legend to unite them, entertain them, save them.
Now wouldn’t that be a kick in the head. Or wait! You get stuck in the past and use your knowledge of basic sanitation and healthcare on the people around you and it turns out YOU ARE THE JESUS!
This is a more reasonable tone you strike here, RT, than the lasttime you and I danced around this particular bush. I commend you on striking that tone here.
Question: “Explain Elvis’ appeal.”
Normal people: “Well, he was young and very good looking and charismatic. He sang catchy, simple songs kids could dance to. He made black music accessible to white kids. He didn’t whitewash his sexuality.”
Contrarians: I cannot answer that question because it’s just a myth that Elvis was the King of Rock 'n Roll. You will never find documentation that he was truly royalty. EVER. Because it doesn’t exist. And because I know this, and refuse to be deluded by it, I am superior to you.
Normal people: Well, okay. Thanks for taking a potentially interesting topic and derailing it with your odd sense of reality.
No, this isn’t really true. Paul got the ball rolling on taking the new religion out to non-Jews. But Paul was a Jew and many of the people he was dealing with were Jews. He wouldn’t have been able to get away with making up recent historical events in Judea.
The historical reality of Jesus was actually a major problem that the early Christians had to overcome. Religions had always been based on legendary events back in pre-history - the Christians had a hard time selling people on the idea that a major religious event had just happened in their own time. And gods were supposed to be powerful figures - but the Christian god had been a wandering preacher who was powerless to save even his own life.
The Christians would never have invented Jesus - they had to put a lot of work into convincing people to accept Christianity despite Jesus. If they were going to invent a founder, they would have come up with something better.
Why do you keep trying to argue with me about the existence of Jesus? I have not argued the contrary.
Paul was talking to people who were in no position to know anything ABOUT Jesus, though. Like I said, if he did NOT exist, how would they know that?
So the story was so ridiculous that no one in their right mind would believe it unless it was true?
Do you believe tales of alien abduction? I mean, they’re far too outrageous to be true, yet lots of people believe them, and lots of people can’t all be fools, so therefore aliens?
I immediately redubbed this the “Dread Pirate Jesus” theory.
I’d convert to that! DPJ!
I’d say only Davey Crockett fits the analogy you’re going for, and even then, there’s only a thin veneer of story attached to the real Davey Crockett - it’s pretty clear from the folktales what is embellishment and what isn’t. It’s when you get to, say, Johnny Appleseed that you get a better analogy. But to me, Jesus is more likely Paul Bunyan than Davey Crockett. All veneer, no substance.
Well, he also based it on numbers at the end - that is, 300 CE.
But OK, that’s not great evidence - what about Nero blaming Christians for the great fire of Rome? Isn’t that decent evidence that Christians were a group at least known?
What about the letters from Paul to 7 churches? Isn’t 7 churches that far apart pretty good evidence that we’re at least talking in the low thousands in membership?
Again I say if you believe Paul was historical, you either believe Jesus was a historical figure, or Paul was willfully and knowingly orchestrating a huge conspiracy.
Based on ‘nuh-uh.’
Or, Paul himself was taken in by the messiah cult mythos and innocently preached it, adding his own interpretations as he went.
Based on real-world experience with exactly this sort of thing - I mean, how many followers did Joseph Smith have in a decade - does that make Moroni real? People will straight-up believe the weirdest shit if you sell it to them right.
It doesn’t follow from Joseph Smith that Jesus is more Paul Bunyan than Davy Crockett.
Paul Bunyan was truly based on *nobody *- you’re saying there is no historical Jesus.
But that’s what I’m getting at - Paul was close enough to the apostles and to some early martyrs that he would have known whether Jesus was a mystic legend, or this guy that these guys all knew who died.
Or he was a gullible bubkis with a vivid imagination and a need to feel important.
What do Moroni and Paul Bunyan have in common?
Paul Bunyan as we know him was made up for an advertising campaign. Joseph Smith made up Moroni. People make stuff up all the time. Why not Jesus?
Do you think Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith really saw Moroni?
Well, then we’re in agreement. It would have to be an intentional conspiracy on Paul’s part. That’s, frankly, my feeling about Joseph Smith.
In Paul’s case, though, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Occam’s razor suggests to me Paul believed in what he was doing.
ETA -
Well, yes. Good point. So you think the apostles lied to Paul?