The problem with the Constantine assertion is that it is over 300 years after Jesus, Christianity represented more than 25% of the population of his empire upon his ascension to power
What's your source for this stat? I think the figure was between 7 and 10%, i.e. around the same as Manichianism. The figures for the early growth of Christianity are exaggerated.
and his political decision to support it to solve the unrest in a newly conquered area was reversed by his successor immediately after his death.
That's not true. You are referring, I assume, to the Emperor Julian the Apostate, who came to power 23 years after the death of Constantine, and reigned for just 2 years, during which he tried to reestablish the old religion but failed entirely. Had he lived longer, he may have had some success, but given that Constantine spent much of his 31-year rule in promoting Christianity, that seems unlikely.
So while it is certainly difficult to understate Constantine's impact on the growth of Christianity, his political decsion does not explain Christianity's growth during the 3 centuries leading up to him, which again was the question I had asked.
It is also clearly quite easy to overstate the growth of Christianity during the 200 or so years between the writing of the NT and the accession of Constantine.
It is difficult to understand your position if at once you begin by claiming that Jesus was simply another of many delusional or dishonest folks claiming to be God then suggest that he did not exist at all, but was simply some sort compilation of characters or story lines. Folks are entitled to their own opinions as the saying goes but not there own facts. The fact is simple, someone or something caused a small group of people early in the first century to believe so deeply, that they were willing to die and that fervor caught on and grew very rapidly for 300 years.
I didn't claim Jesus was either dishonest or delusional. Where did you get that from? That would appear to be either your contention, or a contention that you are projecting onto me. Either way, I've never referred to Jesus as delusional or deceitful. Your assertion that something or someone caused a small group of people to exert a great deal of effort to spread their religion is something I can easily agree with. That assertion doesn't contradict a belief that that certain something, or someone may have been a synthesis of ideas and biographical details from a number of different sources.
Within the context of my question I am not seeking stipulation that Jesus was God or even that such an individual had to have existed, whether there was or was not a specific person or whether that person was or was not the God he claimed to be is not relevant.
Quite. So why are you ragging on me about it? I simply stated my belief. I didn't try to make you accept it.
My question, which seems perhaps too simple, is, why did this particular figure, amalgam, person, fantasy grow as rapidly as it did and become a hugely popular religion long before Constantine, rather than the many others who you suggest also made similar claims.
It is a simple question and has a simple answer. It was one of many, many religious movements around at the time and, until Constantine threw the entire weight of the Roman Empire behind it, it was not especially prominent, probably no more than 10% of adherents within the Empire, as opposed to much larger percentages of pagans and followers of Hellenistic religions. As to why it had reached that level of popularity, well it was/is a very attractive set of beliefs that appeal to the heart and the intellect. It preaches peace, which was something of a novelty during those turbulent centuries, and it is a fairly simple creed to understand - the entire pantheon of Roman and pagan gods requires a huge mental effort to comprehend. Monotheism has a wonderful simplicity about it and Christianity had not muddied the water by that time with complicating ideas such as the Trinity, which didn't appear until around 200 CE.
And so there is no mistake, of the Lunacy, Liar, Lord options offered of Jesus first by Chesterton then CS Lewis, I went from having no doubt the fellow was either a loony or a liar to having no doubt He is exactly what he claimed to be, and to make it "worse" that lengthy and difficult conversion led me not just away from staunch atheism to Christianity, but more specifically to Catholicism.
Good for you! I'm always happy to hear that someone is comfortable in their beliefs, and I hope you continue to find strength in them.
I can't really accept the Chesterton/Lewis trinity of Lunatic/Liar/Lord if all three presuppose that the person referred to is that one individual who did all those things, said all those things and really was just the one individual. As I said before, I'm not saying he wasn't, just that I don't see any non-biblical evidence to convince me. You have faith in that, and that's absolutely fine. I'm not trying to dissuade you from believing what you believe, just saying that I don't share that faith.
