What I want to say that a lot of things are capable of going against the odds and to survive in spite of opposition. There's a good number of religions rising (or deriving from others) all the time, and one of them is bound to rise in power. Of course, there are many other explanations than just random chance: Political situation in Rome was way more complex than you, or anyone else for that matter, can really know now, over 2000 years later. You have no idea whether or not there were parties lobbying for christianity and then wanted to prented how difficult it was for it to rise in power so it becomes more popular; When something unbelievable happens, it's because somebody lied or misinterpreted events most of the time and as the saying goes, History is wirtten by the victors.

There is an idea that the Gospels used used a common Q source for the sayings of Jesus, but it isn't anything more than speculation, and it wouldn't apply to the entire Gospels or to the names reported in the accounts.

I did say:

"All of these things come together to build a narrative that looks believable. With all the attention to detail, one would expect they got the important parts right as well. This doesn't prove that it happened, but it’s not what you would expect if the gospels were the result of a conspiracy of incompetence, or were removed from eyewitnesses. "

I think the use of names is strong evidence that the Gospels are high quality eyewitness accounts, which doesn't prove that they were telling the truth, but I do think it makes them difficult to easily dismiss.
Obviously, oh teacher, please feel free to start listing your sources that early Christianity was spread by the sword.
I fully agree. I don't think Aztecs made human sacrifices for the fun of it, but to appease their gods. I'm talking about the scenario where inflicting pain on babies or raping them is more virtue in itself.

Pimp, have you ever examined the work of Daniel B. Wallace?
You can find him in iTunesU. He generally cleans the floor with Bart Erhman (Bart ErrorMan) when they debate.

Do you understand the nature of a covenant, both bi-lateral or unilateral, with conditions, scope, and time limits?

However, when you take them all together, it would have made it nearly impossible for Christianity to survive if Jesus had not risen from the dead. That doesn't prove that Jesus resurrected, but it should give us pause to consider that rejecting Christianity isn't as simple as doubting that a resurrection could happen.


Have to address this, it's only not simple to ancient illiterate jews in the bronze age. Resurrection is completely impossible, and is the foundation of christianity that jesus on a stick came back to life, we know that's impossible but those that believe refuse to acknowledge that.

Well, people presumed dead when they were just unconcsious or in a coma happens all the time. To poor bronze age people without any medical technology this would surely be wondrous.

But it happens loads of times in the bible to many people, so I don't see why this is such a big deal to Seyong.

Presumptions can be mistaken, and comas arent the same thing as all out death for 3 days straight. Sorry, doesn't happen.

Anyone actually interested in this discussion should check out the Michael S. Horton article in the current issue of http://www.modernreformation.org . The site is subscription, but some articles, such as this one, are free.

Also, check this mp3
http://004f597.netsolhost.com/fftf/F4F091713.mp3
from this page
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2013/09/new-evidences-that-the-gospels-were-based-on-eyewitness-testimony.html
for a better explanation of the eyewitness evidence that was mentioned earlier. After reading the article, spending time on Daniel B. Wallace, and listening to that mp3, people here will have some real information to discuss. So far, except for a few posts, there has been more then enough "pooling of ignorance." The lecture expounds on what Soyeong was saying. He makes it very comprehensible, and while not directly addressing the lame Q theory, he gives enough information to show that Q is fallacious. There is a "Q"-like source for certain things Jesus said: JESUS HIMSELF, duh!


Pimpmonkey, pleeeeaaaase, please, please go get a REAL education, and I mean REAL information, not slander-rumours spread by liberals outside outside the university union (or equivalent pseudo-information). Check out the links and other things first. :) You might be surprised.

Fenixp, history is written by the victors...hrmmm. That's almost as bad (and Marxist-proagandist, which has swept this country) as Pimpmonkey's idea the Christianity was spread by force. Roman Catholicism, which is post-Constantine, is not Biblical Christianity. For the first few centuries of Christianity, which was pre-Constantine, it was spreading AND under persecution--they were not "victors." Whoever thinks Chrstianity was spread by force, or that the bible even approves of such a thing (requiring that it be shown in the text IN CONTEXT) doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Have fun, Soyeong!

I stopped taking this post or poster seriously at the last sentence.

Actually, you are told that there were a numbet of factors that Christianity faced, you don't actually know that. Nobody can nowadays really, as vast majority of written sources will obviously be skewed towards the faith that emerged victorious. Even resurrection could be just a ruse - I mean, the entire north korea believes that they're actually an extremely powerful and prosperous country, completely based on propaganda. I'm not questioning the beliefs of the people of that day, I'm questioning the very source those beliefs came from.

How come bible waving is so often related to conservative fantasies (like "omg the commies they control the country", etc) ?

And trying to shove it into law also.

You have to be kidding if you think anyone with a sane mind takes the accounts of the bible at face value. I'd sooner ascribe to Grimm's fairy tales. The morality therein is a bit more balanced.

Oh he will, but only the parts he approves of.