U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2019, 03:25 AM
 
39,033 posts, read 10,825,389 times
Reputation: 5082

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Except you said Paul deceived us. My point was if he believed this, was he deceiving anyone?
Good point - and V useful discussion. I mean, about paul saying a resurrection on the third day. Getting it from the followers of Jesus and saying that what Soulds like the basis Gospel story was in the scriptures.

On the face of it, this seems locvkdown proof that the jesus story was true, but it isn't as simple as that.

Paul was crafty and deceptive. he knew he was doing it, too. That isn't to say that he didn't have faith - the believers do - but that means that evidence (including scripture) can be fiddled (as Paul does in Romans) to support what he believes.

Paul says he got this from the disciples- but he also says that he got nothing from men, but from God (notably his chat with Jesus in heaven (2 Cor.12.2).) and the resurrection seems to be a spirit resurrection as the Jesus that appears to Paul is certainly a spirit jesus as seems the case with the appearances that Paul mentions. Look at the 1 cor. 15 appearance

1. to Cephas (no appearance to Peter in the gospels - other than Luke who tries to slip it in to get the gospels to agree with Paul).
2 the twelve. (it was of course 11, unless you go with John, who makes it 10, Thomas being absent- No 'the twelve' isn't a generic term like a rock band. Luke says 'the 11' were there ) Oh- and no mention of the marys or of course Cleophas, which is a total invention of luke.
3 to 500 bretheren. Clearly this is talking about a mass Vision and not Jesus showing his appendix scars and scoffing a fish supper. That is demonstrable invention.
4 finally to James the canniest Jew of them all and to Paul who got a vision that told him exactly what he wanted to hear. A 'gospel' that he had to work out with twisted logic and fiddled scripture in 'Romans' and which did not (I strongly suspect) go down well with Jesus' followers. Despite Paul telling it from his point of view, it looks like he was summoned to Jerusalem to explain this Gentile -friendly doctrine he had invented, was told to pack it in and get in line, and simply ignored them, carried on and treated the 'super -apostles' with some contempt after that, and warned his flock about listening to any 'gospel' other than the one he taught, and berating them for backsliding.

In fact Pauline Messianic Judaism failed, but what succeeded was Pauline Christianity, pretty much evolved by Gentiles, not Jews.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2019, 04:59 AM
 
10,523 posts, read 12,733,337 times
Reputation: 3864
Christianity is a stumbling block, isn't it? Paul's words are even more true today than when he wrote them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 05:08 AM
 
13,476 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
Christianity is a stumbling block, isn't it? Paul's words are even more true today than when he wrote them.
yes, it has some of the same properties of a speed bump and/or sun shine. Many good tools can be turned into weapons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 09:01 AM
 
39,033 posts, read 10,825,389 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
Christianity is a stumbling block, isn't it? Paul's words are even more true today than when he wrote them.
No, it isn't Christianity is the stumbling -block, it is lack of Christian credibility that is the stumbling -block.

it isn't made more credible by mis-presenting Paul (his stumbling-block is the Cross (1) and then Pretending that this fiddling makes Paul reliable. You are not doing Paul, Christianity nor yourself any favours with such attempts to fool people. You are only helping Atheism.

(1) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 01:07 PM
 
177 posts, read 37,338 times
Reputation: 61
The biblical and Christian "history" that gets bandied about on these threads is really quite comical. The self-congratulatory confidence of some posters here, who actually have no idea what they are talking about, is even more comical. Right, watch some YouTube videos and read some Wikipedia articles and sign yourself up to debate William Lane Craig. Let us know how that works out. He entertains questions at virtually every public appearance. Confront him with your vast knowledge (and be sure to bring a wet towel to wipe the egg off your face). For that matter, you can submit challenging questions directly to him on his Reasonable Faith website.

Biblical and Christian scholarship is vast and serious. YouTube videos, Wikipedia articles and inane discussions on internet boards aren't the stuff of which it is made.

For those who don't know, some of Paul's letters are the earliest documents in the NT with the possible exception of the letter of James. We can date with considerable accuracy Paul's conversion, his visits to Jerusalem and other key events. This is why scholars know that the parts of hymns and creeds that Paul quotes date to the very earliest days of Christianity.

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

The essential fact for Paul was the reality of the resurrection as a historical event. He had confirmed this with eyewitnesses, including Peter and James. He explicitly states that many of the eyewitnesses were still living when 1 Corinthians was written, about 20 years after the event (it is not the earliest of Paul's letters). Sending this letter to Corinth for circulation throughout the area would have been ridiculous if what Paul was saying could have been easily contradicted: "What are you talking about? This isn't what Peter, James and the other apostles claim. There is no one living who claims to have seen the risen Jesus." In fact, the most elderly of the eyewitnesses were still alive when Trajan became emperor in 98 AD.

The essential fact for the early Christians was that the resurrection had occurred, not that it was "according to the [OT] Scriptures" Jesus himself analogized his death and resurrection to the story of Jonah, so there would scarcely have been any concern about OT references other than this. (Explicit resurrection typology is also found in Psalm 16: "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.")

Jesus and virtually everything he said and did, including his death and resurrection, completely confounded the Jews. He was not at all the conquering warrior Messiah they had anticipated, which is why they rejected him. After his resurrection, there was indeed almost a mania among Jewish Christians to find references to him in the OT in order to convince their fellow Jews. Some of what they "found" seems bizarre today, but finding double meaning in obscure biblical passages was an accepted Jewish practice. There was also extensive rabbinic midrash, some of which referred to a dying Messiah.

In short, the fact that the OT contains no explicit reference to the Messiah rising after three days is neither startling nor significant. What is significant is that only the historical reality of the resurrection explains the complete transformation of the dispirited Christian community a few days after the crucifixion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 01:09 PM
 
11,234 posts, read 11,256,867 times
Reputation: 3445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
I think many can convince themselves.

Paul (and Peter in Jerusalem) must have been charismatic, and convinced enough to start a movement. But most people were not convinced, which is why this proto-Christianity remained a small sect of Judaism until the second century AD.

And from the letters we have from Paul, many of the original did not remain faithful. And from those letters, Paul sounds like a man you would not want to upset.

Exactly. You can hear apologists both on YouTube and over in the Christianity forum that Christianity spread like wildfire. It didn't. Philip Jenkins, professor of history at Baylor University
"estimate(s) a global Christian population of 40,000 in AD 150..."


So 120 years after Jesus a mere 40,000 people converted. That is NOT spreading like wildfire.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Good point - and V useful discussion. I mean, about paul saying a resurrection on the third day. Getting it from the followers of Jesus and saying that what Sounds like the basis Gospel story was in the scriptures.

On the face of it, this seems lockdown proof that the jesus story was true, but it isn't as simple as that.

Paul was crafty and deceptive. he knew he was doing it, too. That isn't to say that he didn't have faith - the believers do - but that means that evidence (including scripture) can be fiddled (as Paul does in Romans) to support what he believes.

Paul says he got this from the disciples- but he also says that he got nothing from men, but from God (notably his chat with Jesus in heaven (2 Cor.12.2).) and the resurrection seems to be a spirit resurrection as the Jesus that appears to Paul is certainly a spirit jesus as seems the case with the appearances that Paul mentions. Look at the 1 cor. 15 appearance

1. to Cephas (no appearance to Peter in the gospels - other than Luke who tries to slip it in to get the gospels to agree with Paul).
2 the twelve. (it was of course 11, unless you go with John, who makes it 10, Thomas being absent- No 'the twelve' isn't a generic term like a rock band. Luke says 'the 11' were there ) Oh- and no mention of the marys or of course Cleophas, which is a total invention of luke.
3 to 500 bretheren. Clearly this is talking about a mass Vision and not Jesus showing his appendix scars and scoffing a fish supper. That is demonstrable invention.
4 finally to James the canniest Jew of them all and to Paul who got a vision that told him exactly what he wanted to hear. A 'gospel' that he had to work out with twisted logic and fiddled scripture in 'Romans' and which did not (I strongly suspect) go down well with Jesus' followers. Despite Paul telling it from his point of view, it looks like he was summoned to Jerusalem to explain this Gentile -friendly doctrine he had invented, was told to pack it in and get in line, and simply ignored them, carried on and treated the 'super -apostles' with some contempt after that, and warned his flock about listening to any 'gospel' other than the one he taught, and berating them for backsliding.

In fact Pauline Messianic Judaism failed, but what succeeded was Pauline Christianity, pretty much evolved by Gentiles, not Jews.

You point out the obvious flaws in this so-called "creed". From 0 to 55 CE, over half a century, we have't a single word written by anyone about anyone in the New Testament. When a person like the writer of Mark is trying to construct an entire religion out of thin air it becomes inevitable that most if not all of his story is going to be pure invention, including this creed--hence the egregious errors you point out contained within it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 06:24 PM
 
177 posts, read 37,338 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
So 120 years after Jesus a mere 40,000 people converted. That is NOT spreading like wildfire.
Estimates of the Christian population during the first three centuries are extremely inexact. See https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...-does-it-take/ and https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...st-christians/. (Prof. Larry Hurtado is one of the premier scholars of early Christianity.)

Given the Roman persecution of both Christians and Jews in the decades after Jesus' death, the survival of Christianity is quite miraculous. I don't suggest this was constant intense persecution, because some emperors were more tolerant than others, but at no time prior to 150 CE was being a Christian a popular or risk-free activity.

Prof. Jenkins' estimates for the period 40 CE to 350 CE are startling, https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org...ul%2C2011.pdf:
TABLE 3.1. Growth in Number of Christians, 40 CE to 350 CE

Year Number of Converts

40 CE 1,000
50 CE 1,400
100 CE 7,400
109 CE 10,000
150 CE 40,000
178 CE 100,000
200 CE 210,000
246 CE 1,000,000
250 CE 1,100,000
300 CE 6,000,000
315 CE 10,000,000
350 CE 32,000,000
We can debate the meaning of "spreading like wildfire," but under the circumstances I believe it is a conservative description of the above figures. Remember, Prof. Jenkins' estimates are the "scholarly guesses" to which Prof. Hurtado refers. I at least don't have the sense from Acts and Paul's letters that the Christian community in 40 CE and 50 CE was quite as small as Prof. Jenkins suggests, but as I say the mere survival during this period is miraculous. Since you are a fan of Prof. Jenkins and the growth of Christianity, you should be interested in his book The Coming Global Christianity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 09:59 PM
 
11,234 posts, read 11,256,867 times
Reputation: 3445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
The biblical and Christian "history" that gets bandied about on these threads is really quite comical. The self-congratulatory confidence of some posters here, who actually have no idea what they are talking about, is even more comical. Right, watch some YouTube videos and read some Wikipedia articles and sign yourself up to debate William Lane Craig. Let us know how that works out. He entertains questions at virtually every public appearance. Confront him with your vast knowledge (and be sure to bring a wet towel to wipe the egg off your face). For that matter, you can submit challenging questions directly to him on his Reasonable Faith website.

Biblical and Christian scholarship is vast and serious. YouTube videos, Wikipedia articles and inane discussions on internet boards aren't the stuff of which it is made.

For those who don't know, some of Paul's letters are the earliest documents in the NT with the possible exception of the letter of James. We can date with considerable accuracy Paul's conversion, his visits to Jerusalem and other key events. This is why scholars know that the parts of hymns and creeds that Paul quotes date to the very earliest days of Christianity.

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

The essential fact for Paul was the reality of the resurrection as a historical event. He had confirmed this with eyewitnesses, including Peter and James. He explicitly states that many of the eyewitnesses were still living when 1 Corinthians was written, about 20 years after the event (it is not the earliest of Paul's letters). Sending this letter to Corinth for circulation throughout the area would have been ridiculous if what Paul was saying could have been easily contradicted: "What are you talking about? This isn't what Peter, James and the other apostles claim. There is no one living who claims to have seen the risen Jesus." In fact, the most elderly of the eyewitnesses were still alive when Trajan became emperor in 98 AD.

The essential fact for the early Christians was that the resurrection had occurred, not that it was "according to the [OT] Scriptures" Jesus himself analogized his death and resurrection to the story of Jonah, so there would scarcely have been any concern about OT references other than this. (Explicit resurrection typology is also found in Psalm 16: "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.")

Jesus and virtually everything he said and did, including his death and resurrection, completely confounded the Jews. He was not at all the conquering warrior Messiah they had anticipated, which is why they rejected him. After his resurrection, there was indeed almost a mania among Jewish Christians to find references to him in the OT in order to convince their fellow Jews. Some of what they "found" seems bizarre today, but finding double meaning in obscure biblical passages was an accepted Jewish practice. There was also extensive rabbinic midrash, some of which referred to a dying Messiah.

In short, the fact that the OT contains no explicit reference to the Messiah rising after three days is neither startling nor significant. What is significant is that only the historical reality of the resurrection explains the complete transformation of the dispirited Christian community a few days after the crucifixion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Estimates of the Christian population during the first three centuries are extremely inexact. See https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...-does-it-take/ and https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...st-christians/. (Prof. Larry Hurtado is one of the premier scholars of early Christianity.)

Given the Roman persecution of both Christians and Jews in the decades after Jesus' death, the survival of Christianity is quite miraculous. I don't suggest this was constant intense persecution, because some emperors were more tolerant than others, but at no time prior to 150 CE was being a Christian a popular or risk-free activity.

Prof. Jenkins' estimates for the period 40 CE to 350 CE are startling, https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org...ul%2C2011.pdf:
TABLE 3.1. Growth in Number of Christians, 40 CE to 350 CE

Year Number of Converts

40 CE 1,000
50 CE 1,400
100 CE 7,400
109 CE 10,000
150 CE 40,000
178 CE 100,000
200 CE 210,000
246 CE 1,000,000
250 CE 1,100,000
300 CE 6,000,000
315 CE 10,000,000
350 CE 32,000,000
We can debate the meaning of "spreading like wildfire," but under the circumstances I believe it is a conservative description of the above figures. Remember, Prof. Jenkins' estimates are the "scholarly guesses" to which Prof. Hurtado refers. I at least don't have the sense from Acts and Paul's letters that the Christian community in 40 CE and 50 CE was quite as small as Prof. Jenkins suggests, but as I say the mere survival during this period is miraculous. Since you are a fan of Prof. Jenkins and the growth of Christianity, you should be interested in his book The Coming Global Christianity.

You and I have butted heads before, Nerfball. I establish facts and you run away like a kid terrified of the schoolyard bully. From your tone I'll assume you're middle-aged to senior. As such I'd expect you talk with a little decorum and not throw hash around like a few Christians in here who know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.

People here know my stance and what I'd expect WL Craig to answer for:

Quote:
The biblical and Christian "history" that gets bandied about on these threads is really quite comical. The self-congratulatory confidence of some posters here, who actually have no idea what they are talking about, is even more comical.
I know quite a bit about what I'm talking about and I've demonstrated it before in numerous thread. As a former Christian I have been on both sides as opposed to you who only has the fluff your church pastor (who only has a degree in theology out of a box of cornflakes) spews at you every Sunday and which you eagerly lap up like a....well, lapdog and then spew back at us. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

I've watched every debate on YouTube idiot Craig has posted and I hear the same tired old 4 lines of "proof" for the resurrection he throws out to the audience each time. Start at minute 3:00 of the video below if you need to familiarize yourself with them. Educate yourself:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-yIVXj_RWU



The guy should just put on a tape of his last debate and use it as his opening statement for successive debates because it never changes. And NO ONE has questioned him on the most logical fallacy he's using to underpin his anemic argument: he automatically assumes there's a God in order to support his contentions that a God could raise Jesus from the dead--not that God might or might not do it, but that God COULD do it. Well, if God can create our universe which by the latest estimates is 94 BILLION light years x 94 BILLION light years and the trillions of galaxies contained therein I'm sure God COULD raise a dead man. The question is WOULD HE BOTHER TO?

Idiot Craig hasn't a single line of proof outside the Bible. Ask him to produce something written to within 50 years of Jesus--outside the epistles which are questionable at best far as unbiased authentic properly dated sources, and total frauds written in the 2nd century by anonymous Christian shills at worst--Craig couldn't produce a single line of testimony from contemporary historians testifying to Jesus, the apostles or Paul! Why? Because nobody of note in the first 95 years of the 1st century wrote a single word about Jesus, the apostles or Peter and Paul! How do you like them apples?????

So let's dispense with Craig as a serious historian and label him for what he really is: a crackpot armchair philosopher who's sold his brain to Jesus.

Far as the rest of your diatribe it's too full of errors, bias and flat-out nonsense to address in its entirety, but I'd be happy to take any specific points you care to throw at me and I'll give you a good spanking and send you to bed without a cookie when I reply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 02:28 AM
 
39,033 posts, read 10,825,389 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
The biblical and Christian "history" that gets bandied about on these threads is really quite comical. The self-congratulatory confidence of some posters here, who actually have no idea what they are talking about, is even more comical. Right, watch some YouTube videos and read some Wikipedia articles and sign yourself up to debate William Lane Craig. Let us know how that works out. He entertains questions at virtually every public appearance. Confront him with your vast knowledge (and be sure to bring a wet towel to wipe the egg off your face). For that matter, you can submit challenging questions directly to him on his Reasonable Faith website.

Biblical and Christian scholarship is vast and serious. YouTube videos, Wikipedia articles and inane discussions on internet boards aren't the stuff of which it is made.

For those who don't know, some of Paul's letters are the earliest documents in the NT with the possible exception of the letter of James. We can date with considerable accuracy Paul's conversion, his visits to Jerusalem and other key events. This is why scholars know that the parts of hymns and creeds that Paul quotes date to the very earliest days of Christianity.

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

The essential fact for Paul was the reality of the resurrection as a historical event. He had confirmed this with eyewitnesses, including Peter and James. He explicitly states that many of the eyewitnesses were still living when 1 Corinthians was written, about 20 years after the event (it is not the earliest of Paul's letters). Sending this letter to Corinth for circulation throughout the area would have been ridiculous if what Paul was saying could have been easily contradicted: "What are you talking about? This isn't what Peter, James and the other apostles claim. There is no one living who claims to have seen the risen Jesus." In fact, the most elderly of the eyewitnesses were still alive when Trajan became emperor in 98 AD.

The essential fact for the early Christians was that the resurrection had occurred, not that it was "according to the [OT] Scriptures" Jesus himself analogized his death and resurrection to the story of Jonah, so there would scarcely have been any concern about OT references other than this. (Explicit resurrection typology is also found in Psalm 16: "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.")

Jesus and virtually everything he said and did, including his death and resurrection, completely confounded the Jews. He was not at all the conquering warrior Messiah they had anticipated, which is why they rejected him. After his resurrection, there was indeed almost a mania among Jewish Christians to find references to him in the OT in order to convince their fellow Jews. Some of what they "found" seems bizarre today, but finding double meaning in obscure biblical passages was an accepted Jewish practice. There was also extensive rabbinic midrash, some of which referred to a dying Messiah.

In short, the fact that the OT contains no explicit reference to the Messiah rising after three days is neither startling nor significant. What is significant is that only the historical reality of the resurrection explains the complete transformation of the dispirited Christian community a few days after the crucifixion.
This is pretty standard Bible -apologetics. aside the appeal to authority (I city the example of a superb Book on Matthew by a Biblical expert who fell into blinkered denial when it came to the two Donkeys'. The fact is that Bible -experts are fine on their own ground, but become totally blinkered on Doubts and questions about its' veracity') you are taking the gospels are reliable record.
They are not.

I agree that Paul's letters are the earliest material. Romans is clearly where he is revising 'what he received' to suit himself. The gospel story was developed (in several stages) later on.

The problem with your assertions is that they are based on what the gospel says, or how what it says is Interpreted (I already explained how Paul's list of Jesus' appearances are NOT, at all the resurrection appearances but visions..in fact merely imagining..Jesus in the head,) and even later 'traditions' about the disciples. We don't know what really became of the disciples as only Paul's references (if one believes Paul really wrote them- I do, up to Ephesians, at least) are reliable. Acts (by Luke) are 5% Paul's letters, 1% Josephus and 94% Luke inventing tall tales and preaching.

His story of Herod Agrippa persecuting disciples is no more believable that his Herod Antipas beating Jesus up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 02:37 AM
 
39,033 posts, read 10,825,389 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Estimates of the Christian population during the first three centuries are extremely inexact. See https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...-does-it-take/ and https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...st-christians/. (Prof. Larry Hurtado is one of the premier scholars of early Christianity.)

Given the Roman persecution of both Christians and Jews in the decades after Jesus' death, the survival of Christianity is quite miraculous. I don't suggest this was constant intense persecution, because some emperors were more tolerant than others, but at no time prior to 150 CE was being a Christian a popular or risk-free activity.

Prof. Jenkins' estimates for the period 40 CE to 350 CE are startling, https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org...ul%2C2011.pdf:
TABLE 3.1. Growth in Number of Christians, 40 CE to 350 CE

Year Number of Converts

40 CE 1,000
50 CE 1,400
100 CE 7,400
109 CE 10,000
150 CE 40,000
178 CE 100,000
200 CE 210,000
246 CE 1,000,000
250 CE 1,100,000
300 CE 6,000,000
315 CE 10,000,000
350 CE 32,000,000
We can debate the meaning of "spreading like wildfire," but under the circumstances I believe it is a conservative description of the above figures. Remember, Prof. Jenkins' estimates are the "scholarly guesses" to which Prof. Hurtado refers. I at least don't have the sense from Acts and Paul's letters that the Christian community in 40 CE and 50 CE was quite as small as Prof. Jenkins suggests, but as I say the mere survival during this period is miraculous. Since you are a fan of Prof. Jenkins and the growth of Christianity, you should be interested in his book The Coming Global Christianity.
I just love it when Christianity spreading, just as Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam did in their time, is wagged about as proof that it is real. We can debate the actual extent of the persecutions or what the appeal of Christianity was, and also the question of whether Constantine ever did really become a Christian - even on his deathbed. None of that proves squat about whether it is actually true.

As regards William lane-Craig, his argument for the resurrection was posted here years ago and even a laybod like me could rip it to pieces. It is basically 'Take the account as true, ignoring all the contradictions, assume that the disciples were persecuted for their belief in a solid -body Jesus resurrection and claim that as evidence that it happened.

Just as in Kalam and in fact pretty much all the Bible apologetics, it is screwed from the start by assuming as a given what the argument is trying to prove.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top