Paul, Not Jesus Spead Chrisitianity

[Guy Incognito]

The person who really gave Christianity a boost was Constantine, who legitimized Christianity in the Roman Empire. It was the Romans who spread it to Europe, and the Europeans who spread it to the new world. Had it not been for Constantine, Christianity would have been a minor historical curiosity, a religion practiced for a time in a limited geographic space by a handful of devout followers.

So, why isn't Constantine sanctified?

He is! So is his mom.

 

[Neosteve]

Jesus, if he existed, was a human being. In his time, revolutionaries were a dime a dozen. The historical circumstances of his existence and his effect in the society of his time are well documented... they were minimal.

Why Jesus became a godly symbol, the Christ, is a sociology issue that is also well documented and analyzed, and it has nothing to do with human existence, only with mass human psychological behavior.

There is no Messiah because there are no gods, and we all know that is true.

And we all know that is true? To whom are you referring? All of mankind? All Americans? All of your peer group? Your contention is ridiculous. The beautiful part of it is that you don't have to believe, noone is going to hunt you down and force you to accept. You can do as you please. The fact is that whether you accept or not is no skin off my teeth or any other Christians. Though I desire for all to come to Christ the only thing I can do or say to make you or anyone else accept is to plant the seed and be an example. The rest is up to you. Unless of course the Lord has a plan for you like he did with Saul of Tarsus.:shock:

 

[Knowledge=power]

And we all know that is true? To whom are you referring? All of mankind? All Americans? All of your peer group? Your contention is ridiculous. The beautiful part of it is that you don't have to believe, noone is going to hunt you down and force you to accept. You can do as you please. The fact is that whether you accept or not is no skin off my teeth or any other Christians. Though I desire for all to come to Christ the only thing I can do or say to make you or anyone else accept is to plant the seed and be an example. The rest is up to you. Unless of course the Lord has a plan for you like he did with Saul of Tarsus.:shock:

This has only changed recently in historical terms.

 

[Dittohead not!]

He is! So is his mom.

You have a point - Saint Helena!

But, Saint Constantine?

 

[Guy Incognito]

You have a point - Saint Helena!

But, Saint Constantine?

Yeah, it's true. He's a big deal with the Greek orthodox.

 

[Tucker Case]

THis is nothing new to me, but my question has to do with whether or not Paul really had an epiphany on the road to Damascus, or whether he simply saw an opportunity to co-opt the movent he had been fighting so ruthlessly?

He never met Jesus while alive, and his own message was not always in alignment with that of Jesus, especially in regards to tolerance, and so I do wonder.

My own attitude is that one should read the red letters and sift though the rest. Red always trumps black in this particular case.

I could not agree more.

 

[ecofarm]

I guess I just thought the Bible was common knowledge even for non-religious people. Hmm.

Knowledge of the Bible is not common among Christians. I run circles around most. For example: my exchange herein with Guy Incog (not a Christian, iirc, but the point stands), was brief, jam packed with Bible facts and really beyond reproach. His argument that Saul made a political move is buried, beyond resurrection, barring a throwing out of Scripture as the basis of analysis. And this after one weak attempt by him to counter/explain. It took me 2 posts.

 

[rhinefire]

Well . . . then you made a poor assumption.

There were barely "hundreds of thousands" of total people in the entire region.

define "region"

 

[rhinefire]

I apologize for my ignorance of the story of Jesus but please clear something up for me. I do know there is a gap in his life when he simply was not accounted for. So he reappears and I assume began preaching to whatever size audiences. Now, if or since he was the chosen one did the majority of the populace simply not believe him when he spoke? It seems to me if rumours of "the coming" were in evidence prior to his birth then why wasn't his following larger and why not from his (virgin) birth? Were his miracles mostly scoffed at by the majority and if so what turned the increasing number of followers to believe he was indeed the son of god?

 

[lizzie]

Now, if or since he was the chosen one did the majority of the populace simply not believe him when he spoke? It seems to me if rumours of "the coming" were in evidence prior to his birth then why wasn't his following larger and why not from his (virgin) birth? Were his miracles mostly scoffed at by the majority and if so what turned the increasing number of followers to believe he was indeed the son of god?

Nobody really "believed in" him at that time, as we interpret that phrase these days, or at least that is what I suspect to be the case. It's difficult to know just exactly how much has been changed in biblical text since the early practice of the religion. I personally suspect that much has been changed, in order to meet the needs of the power structure of the church early on. I don't take much of it literally, but I think many of the principles are a good guide to living a decent life.

 

[Harshaw]

The Spanish, who wiped out the massive central American populations (Aztecs, Mayans) were Catholic. The European settlers from England which subsequently formed the colonies and eventually the United States were all Christians of varying denominations. The people of the United States then spread west to the Pacific coast and wiped out all of the Native Americans along the way. They even destroyed the indidenous Hawaiian culture and implemented Christianity.

"First," meaning arriving here from elsewhere. Not the Pagan Native Americans.

You . . . actually think the "Native" Americans didn't arrive from elsewhere?

 

[Harshaw]

define "region"

I already did. Judea.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I already did. Judea.

The people's front of Judea or the judean people's front?

 

[Harshaw]

The people's front of Judea or the judean people's front?

Whichever ones aren't the spitters.

 

[Tucker Case]

The people's front of Judea or the judean people's front?

Defintiely not the Popular People's Front of Judea. I hate those wankers.

 

[Knowledge=power]

You . . . actually think the "Native" Americans didn't arrive from elsewhere?

...........They walked here via landbridge from Asia into Alaska LONG before any Europeans came to claim North America. Of course they came from 'elsewhere.' But they were here first, and when the big bad Europeans showed up, it was either convert, or die... or just die.

 

[Dittohead not!]

...........They walked here via landbridge from Asia into Alaska LONG before any Europeans came to claim North America. Of course they came from 'elsewhere.' But they were here first, and when the big bad Europeans showed up, it was either convert, or die... or just die.

So, whoever gets to a place first claims the land there forever.

let's see... are there any other examples of newcomers coming and taking over by force? Is that something unique to America, or is it a part of human history everywhere?

 

[Harshaw]

...........They walked here via landbridge from Asia into Alaska LONG before any Europeans came to claim North America. Of course they came from 'elsewhere.' But they were here first, and when the big bad Europeans showed up, it was either convert, or die... or just die.

Here's what you said:

North America could have been dominated by any other religion of any other people who could have arrived here first and done the same. This country is largely Christian because of who settled it, period. It wasn't some divine 'god bless America' manifestation.

They (the "native" Americans) did.

Apparently, you think they don't count for some reason. Very nice.

 

[Josie]

How is that not possible? Not everyone has read the bible, or was raised Christian.

Yes, I understand that. The Bible is the most popular book of all time. I would assume that the average person knows the storyline.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, I understand that. The Bible is the most popular book of all time. I would assume that the average person knows the storyline.

Here are some interesting factoids Josie

The Scandal of Biblical Illiteracy: It's Our Problem

Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. According to data from the Barna Research Group, 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments. "No wonder people break the Ten Commandments all the time. They don't know what they are," said George Barna, president of the firm. The bottom line? "Increasingly, America is biblically illiterate.

Some of the statistics are enough to perplex even those aware of the problem. A Barna poll indicated that at least 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Another survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham.

The joan of arc thing is funny though.

Last year's summer missionary thing at my old Church was to Montana and there is actually good reason for it.

 

[Josie]

Oh my. LOL!

 

[RGacky3]

The remarkable thing about Jesus was somehow this man was every political philosophy known to man at the same time. [/sarcasm]

All you gotta do is read the gospel.

 

[RGacky3]

... a communist.

I do.

No one has evidence to support the claim that "a god exists", therefore no gods exist by definition.

I've stopped using the term communist or socialist with Jesus because of its political baggage, but you (in your bull**** quest to discredit everything religious a priori without having good reasoning for it or real evidence).

As for your second sentance.

No one has evidence to support string theory, (unless made up mathematical equations could as evidence), that doesn't make it not true. There was no evidence for antartica centuries ago, doesn't mean it didn't exist back then, infact if you say "every claim requires evidence," where is the evidence for that claim? (which is why verificationism is undefended in philosophy today), also you're assuming that there IS NO evidnece for God, which is not the case.

Either way, your hardline atheism borders on pure nonsense.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Yes, I understand that. The Bible is the most popular book of all time. I would assume that the average person knows the storyline.

The commonly known storyline doesn't include such intricacies as the story of Saul(Paul). I bet the average person just knows Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, and said to have risen from the dead. That's about it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The commonly known storyline doesn't include such intricacies as the story of Saul(Paul). I bet the average person just knows Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, and said to have risen from the dead. That's about it.

Most of them don't understand that the word "virgin" meant a woman who had not given birth, not a woman who had not had sex.

Of course, back in the days before birth control, the distinction was pretty much academic.