I gues this question is primarily for the nonbelievers out there. At some point in the first couple of centuries C.E., a number of folk fervently spread Christianity. I understand that a number of these individuals were martyred for their beliefs and actions. Assuming Jesus was a historical figure, and that his apostles were the first of these proselytizers. So my question is, why did they put themselves at risk and go to such extents to spread the word of the infant church? Were they mistaken in their belief in the divinity of Jesus? Were their post death encounters with Jesus the result of mass hysteria? Were they cunning manipulators bent of personal gain, or control of others? Were they dupes of a very convincing charismatic personality? Were their messages, including the gospels, merely allegorical representations adopted for persuasive effect? Were they revolutionaries?
Not being a Biblical expert (hopefully one will check in) this reply will truely be IMHO.
Who can tell the true motivation of people who lived 2000 years ago? If you won’t accept their writings as proof of what they believed, we’re left with foisting our modern, cynical attitudes on them. That may be why it seems hard to believe that a group of people thought they had been shown something greater than anything humanity had seen before, and that the only thing to do was share it with the world, regardless of the personal consequences.
One could ask the question about any religious proselytes. You don’t have to bring up “modern cynical attitudes” – there are plenty of advocates of religions around today. Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses still come to my door. If that seems to institutionalized to you, consider Brigham Young and the early Mormon missionaries over 150 years ago, in on the “ground floor” of a new religion. If you think that you are really privy to a Great Secret about Man and his relationship to God, and know How to Save Souls, wouldn’t you go out and try to “sell” it? Optimism and Belief are powerful motivators.
Cal, in my mind, the original apostles were in somewhat of a different position.
Based on my limited research, Joe Smith seems to have been a pretty shady character. And I can explain his motivation by desire for influence, self aggrandizement, etc. Maybe toss in a touch of mental instability. Same with Jim Jones, David Koresh, and countless others.
But my understanding is that Joseph Smith did not claim to be divine. And his followers were not attesting to miracles they witnessed. So I would toss the early stages of Mormon into the cult bin, where people were convinced by a charismatic leader. At some point, when a belief system gains a certain critical mass and becomes institutionalized, IMO it crosses over the blurry line and becomes a religion. IMO the Jehovah’s Witnesses that knock on your door are misguided, but I can understand a reason for that.
And spin offs from existing religion are a different animal. To me protestantism breaking off from catholicism, or extreme present-day Bible-based groups from mainstream christianity, are far smaller leaps than Christianity from Judaism.
But my understanding is that the apostles claimed that Jesus was divine. That he returned to them after his death. Fingers through the holes in his hands and all that stuff. Not to mention the purported miracles during Jesus’ lifetime. If I believe that miracles do not happen, how do I explain why these guys claimed otherwise? They were not seeking existence in an existing community. They were unlikely to attain power and influence through their efforts. Were they dupes of a magician? Did they make up the divinity story to spread their revolutionary message? If I believe Jesus did not and could not commit miracles, why would the apostles “think that [they] are really privy to a Great Secret about Man and his relationship to God, and know How to Save Souls”?