If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ...

by Simon 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Village Idiot

  Jonathan Drake: "As an example, the people who joined the Christian movement by the thousands..."

  Why should we assume that there were thousands regardless of what the Bible claims? History does show that Christianity grew in numbers but that doesn't mean that several thousand were suddenly converted in a short period of time.

  "Something very real, and very impressive was going on to cause such a drastic explosion of Jesus devotion."

  I believe that something real and impressive did happen. Jesus was a charismatic preacher (guru, cult leader) who acquired a small number of super devoted apostles. They in turn started the ball rolling after his death.
• 

  Simon

  None of those things can be proven, only that Jesus did live and rome killed him- that's it. The rest must be taken on faith, and that can't be denied by anyone no matter how crazy indoctrinated into a denomination they are - there is NO PROOF.

  Sorry, you believe there is proof of a historical Jesus? Please tell me you're not going to say "Josephus" and "historian" in the same sentence.

  There is no proof including that for Jesus himself and there is lots of circumstantial evidence that he did not actually exist. If there were proof then there would be no need of faith.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @village

  regarding the thousands, paul was angry because of all the christians all over Jerusalem. The Pharisees stated Jerusalem was filled with these people. The explosion of Christ devotion is a documented event. It was everywhere within just over a decade. Then spread even farther by Paul after his conversion which happened very early.

  no matter how charismatic the teacher, there is no way people would convert to something and stick to it when later they were killed by the hundreds and used as torches to light roadways. It's not possible. Something serious had them convinced to the point of being willing to not only face terrible deaths, but live knowing they may face it any day without saying, "you know what, screw this." I can't accept that.
• 

  Giordano

  If Joseph Smith could get thousands to follow him even loaning him their wives and L Ron Hubbard could get thousands to believe in his fake SyFy religion............. The start of Christianity should not be a surprise.

  With no one having written down exactly what Jesus said or at least no documents available from that era ones personal vision and preferences would suffice.

  Ignorance and foolishness covers a good deal of a believers thought process.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @simon 

  i was going to refer to Josephus, yes - AND tacitus. Tacitus speaks very poorly of christians yet referes to Jesus. He is referred to here:

  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

  There re are a few others referred to I've never heard of, which I'm going to go check out. 

  That Jesus lived isn't really the part that required belief I don't think, at least I've never heard that. The likely hood is that he was a real person. The question is whether you believe what is said about him.
• 

  Village Idiot

  Jonathan Drake: "The explosion of Christ devotion is a documented event. It was everywhere within just over a decade."

  Where is the documentation of such a drastic increase within the first decade? I'm not saying that there wasn't any increase but several thousand at one time is hard to believe. Any increase would probably have slowly started and then snowballed after a certain period of time but thousands in one day?

  "no matter how charismatic the teacher, there is no way people would convert to something and stick to it when later they were killed by the hundreds and used as torches to light roadways. It's not possible."

  Does the name Joseph Rutherford ring a bell? No coliseums but draft dodgers and Holocaust victims and it's later continuation as the blood doctrine (That Watchtower with the montage of martyred children on its front page comes to mind.).
• 

  Simon

  The problem with all the "proof" of a historical Jesus is that the sources are demonstrably fake or suspect as objective witnesses. Unsurprisingly, this doesn't seem to bother the people who chose to believe in them anyway.

  The earlier a manuscript of Josephus for instance the mentions of Jesus become less and less - they are obviously later additions (frequently added in gaps / margins).

  Furthermore, he was no historian or reliable witness. He was a captured rebel who brown-nosed himself up to befriend the emperor who he described rising up to heaven after his death (was that real too?). He also wasn't a first-hand witness - I believe he was in Rome (must've had good eyesight).

  The problem with the proofs for Jesus existence is that they are sought out by people who want to prove Jesus existence. Many of the earliest mentions are at least many decades after he supposedly lived and died - in some cases at least a whole generation or more. Hardly reliable first-hand accounts by any measure. Tacitus was only born 25 years after Jesus died ... any account he gives is simply an account that someone has given to him.

  I think many people also mistakenly confuse accounts of early Christianity with being proof of Jesus.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  This article lightly refers to the documentation of this explosion, and he discusses it further in his books:

  http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Devotion_to_Jesus.shtml

  And here is the difference between modern cult leaders and the early Christian movement. I submit that if Mormons, scientologists, or Jehovah's witnesses were being viciously murdered all over the known world, or severely persecuted continually and not just sporadically - nobody would join them. This was largely the situation in the first century. Members of a group already hated were actually managing to recruit people, people who knew they too would then be treated in kind. This is not a case of a people already in a group being persecuted and a persecution complex being set off. Rather, it's people who have no reason to subject themselves to a persecution already going on choosing to do so. Why?
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  many people also mistakenly confuse accounts of early Christianity with being proof of Jesus.

  This is likely spot on. I confess this is my reasoning. People were alive to know if they were lying, why wouldn't they just out them as liars? ESPECIALLY the Pharisees. The Jewish religion hated Jesus back then, so why wouldn't they have accused them of lying instead of resorting to defamation of a person who they would have known wasn't real? Yet not only did they recognize he was real by accusing him of blaspheme and dying a cursed death, but never in history did they denounce him as a fairy tale. And they have every reason to do so. 
• 

  Simon

  I submit that if Mormons, scientologists, or Jehovah's witnesses were being viciously murdered all over the known world, or severely persecuted continually and not just sporadically - nobody would join them

  I disagree. Certain small groups thrive on persecution and it reinforces their beliefs and makes them more determined and convinced of their own "selected" status.

  There is al element of politics to be factored in as well to some groups, especially when you had an occupying force which was itself superstitious and willing to absorb elements of other faiths.

  Simply a perfect environment for this particular belief to take root and thrive - there was nothing particularly new or unique about many of the beliefs or teachings or stories. It's just chance that this one took off but of course because it took of we now have a tendency to view it as magical.

  No different to evolutionary forces affecting biology and the random chances that caused us to be where we are now.