Who Is Most Responsible for the SUCCESS of the Christian Religion?

In some verses where Jesus talked about his coming, he was talking about judgmental coming and disciplinary coming. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1567-was-christ-mistaken-about-his-second-coming

 

History books quote different facts and omit others. https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com...tradiction-what-were-the-last-words-of-jesus/

 

Where did he sign his masterpiece?

 

Someone once said, "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick." That is, He can use an imperfect person to do something perfectly.

 

The fact remains that, just amongst what most Christians would consider, "good Christians," there is a great deal of variation as to how the Bible is interpreted. Your argument is structured somewhat as a set of Chinese boxes: of the plethora of faiths, in which billions whole-heartedly believe, only the Christians are correct; and of the many flavors of Christians, only your own, most correctly understands the big picture; but if your faith accepts more than 1 translation of the Bible-- and there are so, so many-- on all the words which, both individually & cumulatively, can greatly impact the meaning of many passages, only one version translates them all most truly to their intent; and of all the different interpretations, that preachers & congregants alike, have had of this one, true translation, within this one, true denomination, within your one, true faith, only your particular one, is what God really meant to say.

Since you can't claim that everyone who has the same Biblical opinions as you, is more intelligent than everyone else in the world, you must all, then, be either the world's most spiritually intuitive and/or perceptive, or else, just the luckiest.

 

ah, that is why the Bible is so imperfect

 

People interpret the Bible to believe what is convenient to them. The Old Testament and New Testament agree-Messiah is the Son of God, a child born, the Mighty God in the flesh, sitting on David's throne, ruling it forever, and yet Islam and Judaism reject the Messiah. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Islamic Muslim/what_islam_teaches.htm

I don't agree with that article 100% either. I believe that a lot of Catholic people are saved.

 

Saying that the Bible was written by error prone men doesn't invalidate the statement that the Bible's words are from God. The amazing fulfillment of prophecy is major evidence of that. The Bible mentions Israel becoming a nation again.

 

All well & good-- no argument with that-- it doesn't address my question about the analogy which you presented: the Bible (of your choice) as the painting of God. If it is an unsigned work, how do you know the true identity of the artist?

You are, perhaps, familiar with Picasso's description of painting, as, "a lie, that tells the truth."

 

The Christian God wants all of His creation saved and is a holy righteous just God. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/hell_inside_the_earth.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Islamic Muslim/allah_doesnt_exist.htm

 

Oh, so you are only concerned with the MOST general of Christian tenets. As long as one accepts that Jesus is one with God, they're all good? BTW, you forgot to mention Hindus, & Taoists, & Shintoists, & Jainists, and Amerindian believers in Great Spirit, and more faiths than I could name, amongst those who, "reject," Jesus, i.e., have their own, different beliefs.

 

People follow certain beliefs because it's convenient for them. Shintoism has no historical proof and the nature of God in Shintoism isn't that of a holy, righteous, just, loving God. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/shintoism.htm

 

Of course, Constantine's elevation of Christianity was a HUGE boon to it, as far as phenomenally hastening its spread (though it is impossible to know what would have played out, on history's LP, had he not intervened-- perhaps we would have a much different Christianity, today, that was just as popular). But, without Jesus, whatever religion Constantine gave a leg-up to, it would not have been Christianity, which is why I didn't vote in your poll: it really didn't have just one definitive answer.

The type of list you mention, naturally, you understand is nothing factual; it only represents first, just opinions (which are, in significant measure, based on guesses, as I noted, above-- about Christianity's development without Constantine's intercession) but opinions, based on the way those historians chose to interpret the question.

What I mean is that, I believe the reason all those historians rated Jesus so high was because they saw his teachings as having been tremendously influential, but only-- in our, real, timeline-- because of the Church that formed around those teachings (& others), due to the work of early proselytizers, like Paul. So that's what those votes/placements, IMO, represent. Even if Constantine's role-- a fairly minor action, from the perspective of his own life-- had a large impact, the historians, understandably enough, did not regard Constantine as symbolizing Christianity's role in history from which, as better stand-ins for the religion, Jesus & Paul are benefitting, in the standings.



On a different strain of thought, here's another example of interpretation: none of Paul's or Jesus's accomplishments-- or Constantine's, either, for that matter-- would have been possible, from an historic perspective, without their parents having created them; but it is doubtful any of these historians gave people credit for merely fathering, or gestating & giving birth to, any of the people who went on to do the things that were influential enough to get them on the list. Maybe that's kind of the way they think of Constantine, in respect to Christianity's impact: sure, he might have played a crucial role, but that isn't sufficient to credit him with the part Christianity was to go on to play, in world history.

But, as I suggested, I didn't bring this up to explain what you regard as this list's erroneous slighting of Constantine. I was thinking of those prolific procreators in history, for whom it might be impossible to calculate all the effects their posterity may have had on history. For example, a 2003 study estimated that 16 million men (& so, presumably about as many women), alive today, are direct descendants of Genghis Khan; who's to say that one of the intermediaries of that Y-chromosomal, DNA legacy, had not been Mao Zedong?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...enetic-legacies-likes-genghis-khan-180954052/

 

My understanding is that Paul provides the only eyewitness account of a risen Jesus, the rest is just hearsay.

 

Evidence that theists do NOT believe in Individual FREEDOM.

Also evidence that their IMAGINARY deity does NOT believe in Freedom OF/FROM Religion either.

Sad!

 

There is a fundamental similarity to the questions. Whether we say the universe just occurred from nowhere or 'God' originated from nothing, we are faced with the same dilemma. The question behind these questions is if this all is not just the result of our incapacities of understanding and/or limitations of language.

 

I found this late and it closed just yesterday. I am hereby requesting to be given number 9 on Team Constantine.

Anything other than Constantine is historically doubtful, to say the least. The question here is what is most responsible for Christianity's SUCCESS and the phrasing indicates we should be considering the matter APART from Christianity's validity. Constantine is the clear winner there as we can't even be sure that the others actually existed at all, though they probably did, while Constantine is an unquestioned part of the historical record.

 

If a man casts a net, would one credit the fish for the haul. The correct answer is Jesus. But he prayed to his Father: not my will be done but thine, and that all honor and glory belong to God the Father. What I find remarkable is that God extends to us the great and mighty blessing of free agency with the inherent risk of losing us as well as the means to our salvation and exaltation. And if he would go so far as to give us the blessing of life. Then how could he not care about us and the choices we make.

 

Well I don't know from where you acquired your understanding, but it is not correct, I do not think. First off, both Matthew & Mark, who wrote the first two books of the New Testament, are considered to be the same apostles of those names, and Jesus came to all the apostles, after his death, according to the gospel. Are you telling me they both left that scene out of their versions? That would be very odd.

And I could be forgetting something, but when did Jesus ever come to Paul? You're not counting the voice of God, when he was still Saul, hunting Christians, are you?

 

It looks God is not in control at all. Biden won elections, Islam is today the fastest growing religion and soon the communist China will be more powerful that the US.

 

Well none of the Gospels is written by a named author they are all written anonymously and anyway Mark does not say he has seen Christ risen in the original ending which is attributed to whoever wrote the majority of Mark.

Yes I am counting Pauls vision otherwise there is not a single eyewitness account.

 

God is in control and knows the end. And to assume he's going to keep blessing our nation as those in power become anti God is somewhat arrogant.

 

John is dated a bit later AD 90-120. the second century being favored.

 

Being your own god is fake freedom.

 

There are early manuscripts of the Gospel of John. https://reasonsforjesus.com/5-reasons-to-believe-matthew-mark-luke-john-wrote-the-gospels-2/