How many here believe Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion

[hobelim]

The eyewitness accounts of the disciples being spooked by Jesus after the crucifixion, popping in and out of locked rooms, eating fish, poking his wounds, etc. were eyewitness accounts of what was seen and heard in dreams.

It was the Jewish belief that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing Jesus in dreams after he died would have convinced them that Jesus survived death and had been granted the reward of the righteous, eternal life in the realm of God.

It has been my experience that more than one person I have known personally came to me in dreams after they died specifically to tell me that they were not dead.


I'm a believer.

So you are saying almost everyone's dead relative resurrected, because we all have dreams of them?
Yikes!

Which dead relative appeared to you and what did they say?

My Zada and it wasn't a lucid vision, just a dream.

So?

Why would a dream have less meaning or significance?

Was your Zada righteous?

If God only communicates with people through dreams and visions, altered states of consciousness, how could the righteous worthy of place in the world to come, the incorporeal realm of God, communicate with the living in any other way?



Can you see how a dedicated first century Jew who wasn't sure whether his sacrilegious friend who liked to party with sinners and prostitutes was the Messiah like he claimed or just another poor slob that cracked up and went off the deep end would be convinced that Jesus was righteous and the teaching true after all because they saw and heard from him in a dream and communicated with them in this way after death?

I'm just a dumb farmer from Idaho. Would explain this in crayon so I could understand it.

sure.

The disciples seeing and communicating with Jesus after his death in dreams would have been like God himself confirming what Jesus taught about divine law and what he said before his death about the righteous having a place and receiving eternal life in the kingdom of God, the world to come, never knowing what it is to die.

Before then, they all had lost faith in Jesus, their hopes were dashed, day turned into night, and they were plunged into grief thinking they had thrown their lives away being loyal to a friend who had lost his mind.

They probably felt screwed by someone who was obviously a space cadet who didn't seem to give a shit about anything, and wondered how they could have been so stupid.

Three days of pain, three days of terror, three days of regret and then their minds were opened, their sorrow was turned into an irrepressible joy and they were imbued with a renewed and powerful faith that would carry them for the rest of their lives, just like Jesus said.

 

[Votto]

Really? Why?

Most take days on the cross to die

Jesus was up their four hours

Medicine were use on him when laying him in the crypt/cave

Too many stories of him beyond the middle east after his death.

So when they stuck Jesus in the side with a spear and fluid came out of his side that obviously showed he was dead means nothing to you?

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

I personally don't but I understand some find a truth even if not absolutely factual.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

Really? Why?

Most take days on the cross to die

Jesus was up their four hours

Medicine were use on him when laying him in the crypt/cave

Too many stories of him beyond the middle east after his death.

So when they stuck Jesus in the side with a spear and fluid came out of his side that obviously showed he was dead means nothing to you?

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

I personally don't but I understand some find a truth even if not absolutely factual.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

You say more people think Jesus survived the crucifixion than not?

Be honest, now, are you a Muslim who believes God took Jesus off the cross so some poor soul could die in his place or are you suggesting Jesus was the first recorded survival of a Roman crucifixion?

 

[aris2chat]

Most take days on the cross to die

Jesus was up their four hours

Medicine were use on him when laying him in the crypt/cave

Too many stories of him beyond the middle east after his death.

So when they stuck Jesus in the side with a spear and fluid came out of his side that obviously showed he was dead means nothing to you?

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

I personally don't but I understand some find a truth even if not absolutely factual.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

Most take days on the cross to die

Jesus was up their four hours

Medicine were use on him when laying him in the crypt/cave

Too many stories of him beyond the middle east after his death.

So when they stuck Jesus in the side with a spear and fluid came out of his side that obviously showed he was dead means nothing to you?

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

I personally don't but I understand some find a truth even if not absolutely factual.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

You say more people think Jesus survived the crucifixion than not?

Be honest, now, are you a Muslim who believes God took Jesus off the cross so some poor soul could die in his place or are you suggesting Jesus was the first recorded survival of a Roman crucifixion?

And you are making wild conjectures with no facts

Grasping at straws?

 

[Votto]

So when they stuck Jesus in the side with a spear and fluid came out of his side that obviously showed he was dead means nothing to you?

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

So when they stuck Jesus in the side with a spear and fluid came out of his side that obviously showed he was dead means nothing to you?

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

I personally don't but I understand some find a truth even if not absolutely factual.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

You say more people think Jesus survived the crucifixion than not?

Be honest, now, are you a Muslim who believes God took Jesus off the cross so some poor soul could die in his place or are you suggesting Jesus was the first recorded survival of a Roman crucifixion?

And you are making wild conjectures with no facts

Grasping at straws?

It's a yes or no question, do you believe Allah switched Jesus with someone else on the cross?

 

[Mudda]

After being crucified do you believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Does re-incarnation count?

 

[aris2chat]

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

Fluid can build up before death

Sorry if you don't like it. You follow the story of faith

Here is what is stupid, you are choosing to believe what you want from the story in the Bible and discarding what you don't like.

Why believe any of it at all?

I got news for ya, historically no one ever survives a crucifixion. No one. If they did, their executioners would face death themselves and they were very good at what they did.

I personally don't but I understand some find a truth even if not absolutely factual.

Crucifixion was intended to be a slow torture and as far as abuse and stress to the body, people can survive worse.

Many stories of a living breathing Jesus years beyond the crucifixion and his death at close to hundred yrs of age. More years of his life and travels after his presumed death than his life before.

more people believe that jesus survived the cross than believe he died.

Methods of how he survived vary, but they believe he lived as a man well beyond the cross.

You say more people think Jesus survived the crucifixion than not?

Be honest, now, are you a Muslim who believes God took Jesus off the cross so some poor soul could die in his place or are you suggesting Jesus was the first recorded survival of a Roman crucifixion?

And you are making wild conjectures with no facts

Grasping at straws?

It's a yes or no question, do you believe Allah switched Jesus with someone else on the cross?

yet you believe a man can die and rise from the dead and become god a few hundred years later because of a narrow vote

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Once again the death & resurrection scene is plagiarized:
Now sitting in the British
Museum a 700bc or 900bc tablet
in which the Babylonian myth of Bel (Baal in
Hebrew) is described in a passion play in which:
(1) Bel is taken prisoner;
(2) Bel is tried in a great hall;
(3) Bel is smitten;
(4) Bel is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a
hilltop);
(5) with Bel are taken two malefactors, one of whom is
released;
(6) After Bel has gone to the Mount and is executed,
the city breaks into tumult;
(7) Bel's clothes are carried away;
(8.) Bel goes down into the Mount and disappears from
life;
(9) weeping women seek Bel at the Tomb;
(10) Bel is brought back to life.

Yeah the whole Jesus myth is like a Pat Boone record --- a cover version of somebody else's older tune.

Gotta wonder how the very same things happened in so many different religions.

 

[Dalia]

For those who believe in the incarnation of Jesus have the faith of the beyond for themselves

 

[JimBowie1958]

The two thieve crucified with him were not taken down

They were not taken down when Jesus was, but I believe that they died later and then were taken down before sun set.

assumes facts not in evidence?

The facts we do know are pretty tight as to the eventual removal of the other man.

They are that 1) the Jews did not want them up during Sabbath which began at sundown, and 2) this is why the Romans broke the legs of the two thieves.

These are from the only 4 documents that we have from the time that claim to have eye witness testimony from people who saw the events.

What else do you want?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think he rose from the Dead...there is no Christianity without Him rising from the dead...

I don't know how he did it, or what ''it'' really is...especially having the shroud image on the burial cloth that wrapped him, if that all is true....?

I believe He rose from the dead for the following reasons, though reasons are not required:

1) The only four documents said to be composed from eye witness testimony and also some second hand accounts that were regarded as true by the church in the mid first century to late first century give us details that point to a valid resurrection claim.
......a) The missing body of Jesus that could not be found. The Romans had responsibility for it and they were a methodical and thorough people in those days of early empire.
......b) The Roman soldiers did not initially claim that the body was stolen or that they fell asleep and we know this because that would have meant their execution. So the later lies were with the permission of the Roman and Jewish authorities or they would have been executed.
......c) The complete reversal of the Apostle and Disciples attitude about the the prospects of the church had to be due to some dramatic event. These men who had been in hiding emerged as lions who spread the Gospel to the point of grizzly deaths over the next decades. To accept that they sincerely believed in the events that they claimed to have witnessed is the only rational explanation.

2) The success of the church in the first three centuries attests to the complete sincerity of the early church. The Romans were at their wits end trying to eradicate the church with mass executions and economic discrimination and it all failed. Nothing could dampen the fervor and deeply held beliefs of that church. This cannot be simply due to a web of lies as most mass movements are based on a core of truth that is used to win over the adherents.

3) There have been many mystical experiences by millions of people across the millennia that affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ on a personal level. This cannot be dismissed as mere superstition when it involves men like Columbus, Pasteur, Cartes, Lemaitre, Tolkien and countless others who were rational clear thinking people.

 

[aris2chat]

I think he rose from the Dead...there is no Christianity without Him rising from the dead...

I don't know how he did it, or what ''it'' really is...especially having the shroud image on the burial cloth that wrapped him, if that all is true....?

I believe He rose from the dead for the following reasons, though reasons are not required:

1) The only four documents said to be composed from eye witness testimony and also some second hand accounts that were regarded as true by the church in the mid first century to late first century give us details that point to a valid resurrection claim.
......a) The missing body of Jesus that could not be found. The Romans had responsibility for it and they were a methodical and thorough people in those days of early empire.
......b) The Roman soldiers did not initially claim that the body was stolen or that they fell asleep and we know this because that would have meant their execution. So the later lies were with the permission of the Roman and Jewish authorities or they would have been executed.
......c) The complete reversal of the Apostle and Disciples attitude about the the prospects of the church had to be due to some dramatic event. These men who had been in hiding emerged as lions who spread the Gospel to the point of grizzly deaths over the next decades. To accept that they sincerely believed in the events that they claimed to have witnessed is the only rational explanation.

2) The success of the church in the first three centuries attests to the complete sincerity of the early church. The Romans were at their wits end trying to eradicate the church with mass executions and economic discrimination and it all failed. Nothing could dampen the fervor and deeply held beliefs of that church. This cannot be simply due to a web of lies as most mass movements are based on a core of truth that is used to win over the adherents.

3) There have been many mystical experiences by millions of people across the millennia that affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ on a personal level. This cannot be dismissed as mere superstition when it involves men like Columbus, Pasteur, Cartes, Lemaitre, Tolkien and countless others who were rational clear thinking people.

>>
The earliest Christians did not have church buildings. They typically met in homes. (The first actual church building to be found is at Dura Europos on the Euphrates, dating about 231.) They did not have public ceremonies that would introduce them to the public. They had no access to the mass media of their day. So how can we account for their steady and diverse expansion over the first three centuries?

After the Apostle Paul, we do not run across many "big names" as missionaries in the first few hundred years of Christian history. Instead the faith spread through a multitude of humble, ordinary believers whose names have been long forgotten.

To the cities!
Early Christianity was primarily an urban faith, establishing itself in the city centers of the Roman Empire. Most of the people lived close together in crowded tenements. There were few secrets in such a setting. The faith spread as neighbors saw the lives of the believers close-up, on a daily basis.

And what kind of lives did they lead? Justin Martyr, a noted early Christian theologian, wrote to Emperor Antoninus Pius and described the believers: "We formerly rejoiced in uncleanness of life, but now love only chastity; before we used the magic arts, but now dedicate ourselves to the true and unbegotten God; before we loved money and possessions more than anything, but now we share what we have and to everyone who is in need; before we hated one another and killed one another and would not eat with those of another race, but now since the manifestation of Christ, we have come to a common life and pray for our enemies and try to win over those who hate us without just cause."
The earliest Christians did not have church buildings. They typically met in homes. (The first actual church building to be found is at Dura Europos on the Euphrates, dating about 231.) They did not have public ceremonies that would introduce them to the public. They had no access to the mass media of their day. So how can we account for their steady and diverse expansion over the first three centuries?

After the Apostle Paul, we do not run across many "big names" as missionaries in the first few hundred years of Christian history. Instead the faith spread through a multitude of humble, ordinary believers whose names have been long forgotten.

To the cities!
Early Christianity was primarily an urban faith, establishing itself in the city centers of the Roman Empire. Most of the people lived close together in crowded tenements. There were few secrets in such a setting. The faith spread as neighbors saw the lives of the believers close-up, on a daily basis.

And what kind of lives did they lead? Justin Martyr, a noted early Christian theologian, wrote to Emperor Antoninus Pius and described the believers: "We formerly rejoiced in uncleanness of life, but now love only chastity; before we used the magic arts, but now dedicate ourselves to the true and unbegotten God; before we loved money and possessions more than anything, but now we share what we have and to everyone who is in need; before we hated one another and killed one another and would not eat with those of another race, but now since the manifestation of Christ, we have come to a common life and pray for our enemies and try to win over those who hate us without just cause."<<
The Spread of the Early Church

 

[aris2chat]

But in all logical fairness, you have to remember the story of Satan offering this character popularity throughout the world.
The church story Either means he sold out to Satan,
the unrecognizable appearance was Satan making him popular through the resurrection scam or a charlatan, but realistically the church was the accuser and adversary (satan) towards the righteous Preisthood thus their creation of the reinacted Baal resurrection scene made the image of the man popular as stated in the story. Everyway you look at their own accts points towards deceptions including their own expectation that Rome would lift an image of a false prophet to deceive he world into a one world religion. That occured already in 70ad=Christianity.
Scripture about the time of these events, clearly show these events were to occur in that generation, even specifically mentioning that, like in: (I John 2:18, Rev 1:1,3,9,19, Rev 3:11,
Rev 22:6,7,10,12,Matthew 24:31-34?)
So the beast is not to come, John of Patmos said the anti anointed was already there in his day.
example: by combining Luke 21:24 & Romans 11:25 by history of that era, shows that Revelation 11:1-3 occurred in aprox 70ad.

Christian ideas of evil and satan did not exist for jews, it came later

>>
Satan is one of the many angels mentioned in the Bible. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for angel is malach, meaning “messenger.” The same is true for the English word angel, derived from the Greek word angelos, which also means “messenger.”

Throughout the Bible, an angel is a messenger of God who carries out the divine will of the Almighty. There is not one example in the Jewish Scriptures where any angel, Satan included, ever opposes God’s will.<<
Who Is Satan? | Outreach Judaism

 

[Pogo]

2) The success of the church in the first three centuries attests to the complete sincerity of the early church. The Romans were at their wits end trying to eradicate the church with mass executions and economic discrimination and it all failed. Nothing could dampen the fervor and deeply held beliefs of that church. This cannot be simply due to a web of lies as most mass movements are based on a core of truth that is used to win over the adherents.

I don't think the Romans really gave a shit about their colonized peoples' religion They wouldn't have cared about people practicing Christianism any more than they cared about Jesus' folks practicing Judaism. What Rome cared about was Power and Empire. Neither Judaism, nor Christianism (which wasn't even coherently organized until Nicea anyway) nor any animist or 'pagan' practices of their various conquests posed a threat to that power. So they had no reason to care what their subjects did in their spiritual lives.

What did get Rome's attetion was any threats to its empire, which were brought down swiftly and decisively. Jesus himself being a prime example --- he wasn't executed for anythng spiritual; he was executed for challenging the authority of the State. The title "King of the Jews" meant exactly that, the same as "King of Spain" or "King of England" would mean. You walk around murmuring platitudes, Rome yawns. You go around calling yourself King, well that gets immediate retribution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The earliest Christians did not have church buildings. They typically met in homes. (The first actual church building to be found is at Dura Europos on the Euphrates, dating about 231.) They did not have public ceremonies that would introduce them to the public. They had no access to the mass media of their day. So how can we account for their steady and diverse expansion over the first three centuries?

The early churches were the people, not the buildings, and it still has that primary reference today in religious discussion.

After the Apostle Paul, we do not run across many "big names" as missionaries in the first few hundred years of Christian history. Instead the faith spread through a multitude of humble, ordinary believers whose names have been long forgotten.

I dont know about all that.
Polycarp - Wikipedia
Saint Blaise - Wikipedia
Cyril of Jerusalem - Wikipedia
Saint George - Wikipedia
Saints Nereus and Achilleus - Wikipedia
Saint Matthias - Wikipedia
Augustine of Canterbury - Wikipedia
Saint Boniface - Wikipedia
Pope Clement I - Wikipedia
Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia
Polycarp - Wikipedia
Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia
Justin Martyr - Wikipedia
Irenaeus - Wikipedia
Clement of Alexandria - Wikipedia
Origen - Wikipedia
Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia

To the cities!
Early Christianity was primarily an urban faith, establishing itself in the city centers of the Roman Empire. Most of the people lived close together in crowded tenements. There were few secrets in such a setting. The faith spread as neighbors saw the lives of the believers close-up, on a daily basis.

Yes, and that was probably their most powerful validating evidence; how they lived their lives.

Some say today that if you want to spread the Gospel then live it, and only if necessary use words.

And what kind of lives did they lead? Justin Martyr, a noted early Christian theologian, wrote to Emperor Antoninus Pius and described the believers: "We formerly rejoiced in uncleanness of life, but now love only chastity; before we used the magic arts, but now dedicate ourselves to the true and unbegotten God; before we loved money and possessions more than anything, but now we share what we have and to everyone who is in need; before we hated one another and killed one another and would not eat with those of another race, but now since the manifestation of Christ, we have come to a common life and pray for our enemies and try to win over those who hate us without just cause."

The Romans were beginning to wish that they had more virtuous people by the 4th century as will we soon as well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Christian ideas of evil and satan did not exist for jews, it came later

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Genesis 2:9
The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Numbers 32:13
The Lord’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone.

Judges 2:11
Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals.

Judges 10:6
Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord. They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines. And because the Israelites forsook the Lord and no longer served him,

2 Chronicles 12:14
He did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the Lord.

2 Chronicles 33:2
He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

Psalm 5:4
For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome.

Psalm 14:4
Do all these evildoers know nothing? They devour my people as though eating bread; they never call on the Lord.

Psalm 34:14
Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

Proverbs 3:7
Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil.

Proverbs 5:22
The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them; the cords of their sins hold them fast.

Proverbs 11:6
The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires.

Proverbs 16:6
Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided.

 

[aris2chat]

The earliest Christians did not have church buildings. They typically met in homes. (The first actual church building to be found is at Dura Europos on the Euphrates, dating about 231.) They did not have public ceremonies that would introduce them to the public. They had no access to the mass media of their day. So how can we account for their steady and diverse expansion over the first three centuries?

The early churches were the people, not the buildings, and it still has that primary reference today in religious discussion.

After the Apostle Paul, we do not run across many "big names" as missionaries in the first few hundred years of Christian history. Instead the faith spread through a multitude of humble, ordinary believers whose names have been long forgotten.

I dont know about all that.
Polycarp - Wikipedia
Saint Blaise - Wikipedia
Cyril of Jerusalem - Wikipedia
Saint George - Wikipedia
Saints Nereus and Achilleus - Wikipedia
Saint Matthias - Wikipedia
Augustine of Canterbury - Wikipedia
Saint Boniface - Wikipedia
Pope Clement I - Wikipedia
Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia
Polycarp - Wikipedia
Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia
Justin Martyr - Wikipedia
Irenaeus - Wikipedia
Clement of Alexandria - Wikipedia
Origen - Wikipedia
Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia

To the cities!
Early Christianity was primarily an urban faith, establishing itself in the city centers of the Roman Empire. Most of the people lived close together in crowded tenements. There were few secrets in such a setting. The faith spread as neighbors saw the lives of the believers close-up, on a daily basis.

Yes, and that was probably their most powerful validating evidence; how they lived their lives.

Some say today that if you want to spread the Gospel then live it, and only if necessary use words.

And what kind of lives did they lead? Justin Martyr, a noted early Christian theologian, wrote to Emperor Antoninus Pius and described the believers: "We formerly rejoiced in uncleanness of life, but now love only chastity; before we used the magic arts, but now dedicate ourselves to the true and unbegotten God; before we loved money and possessions more than anything, but now we share what we have and to everyone who is in need; before we hated one another and killed one another and would not eat with those of another race, but now since the manifestation of Christ, we have come to a common life and pray for our enemies and try to win over those who hate us without just cause."

The Romans were beginning to wish that they had more virtuous people by the 4th century as will we soon as well.

300,600.............CE

not exactly the early days

jesus was wise and honored but many thought him very human or that he was always spirit

 

[aris2chat]

Christian ideas of evil and satan did not exist for jews, it came later

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Genesis 2:9
The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Numbers 32:13
The Lord’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone.

Judges 2:11
Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals.

Judges 10:6
Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord. They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines. And because the Israelites forsook the Lord and no longer served him,

2 Chronicles 12:14
He did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the Lord.

2 Chronicles 33:2
He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

Psalm 5:4
For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome.

Psalm 14:4
Do all these evildoers know nothing? They devour my people as though eating bread; they never call on the Lord.

Psalm 34:14
Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

Proverbs 3:7
Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil.

Proverbs 5:22
The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them; the cords of their sins hold them fast.

Proverbs 11:6
The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires.

Proverbs 16:6
Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided.

evil+satan
evil=satan

 

[JimBowie1958]

evil+satan
evil=satan

Christianity, main stream anyway, does not say that Satan = evil, but that disobedience and rebellion to God is evil and Satan was the first and the worst.

As I understand it, Jews believe that Satan is not evil but like the Prosecutor in Gods Heavenly court, sort of.

I dont think that the Jewish conception of Satan is the same as the Christian at all, though they use the same name. This is why many anti-semitics assert that Jews are Satanic, but Jews do not worship Satan at all, they just have a different conception of what lies behind the name 'Satan'.

 

[aris2chat]

evil+satan
evil=satan

Christianity, main stream anyway, does not say that Satan = evil, but that disobedience and rebellion to God is evil and Satan was the first and the worst.

As I understand it, Jews believe that Satan is not evil but like the Prosecutor in Gods Heavenly court, sort of.

I dont think that the Jewish conception of Satan is the same as the Christian at all, though they use the same name. This is why many anti-semitics assert that Jews are Satanic, but Jews do not worship Satan at all, they just have a different conception of what lies behind the name 'Satan'.

>>
שטן
None of the sources explains the assumed root שטן (stn). In the Bible the following derivations occur:

• The masculine noun שטן (satan), meaning adversary. This noun occurs about three dozen times in the Bible and only a few of these occurrences denote the big bad guy: 1 Kings 11:14, "And YHWH raised up שטן (satan) to Solomon; Hadad the Edomite . . . " 1 Kings 11:23, "And Elohim raised up שטן (satan) to him; Rezon son of Eliada . . . "
  In Numbers we even see this noun ascribed to the Angel of YHWH: Numbers 22:22, " . . . and the Angel of YHWH set Himself in the road as שטן (satan) . . . " And verse 32, "I have come as שטן (satan) because your way is contrary to Me".
  In the New Testament Jesus rebukes Peter by saying, "Go behind me satan, . . . " (Matthew 16:23), illustrating the difficulty that translators run into when the same word is translated sometimes as a regular verb or noun and sometimes as a defining personal name. Every now and then Jesus' words are transliterated from Aramaic and it is highly unlikely that He personified Peter with the devil.
• The denominative verb שטן (satan) meaning to resist or be an adversary. This verb is used six times in the Bible, for instance in Psalm 38:20, where it reads: ' . . . they שטן (satan) me because good follows me.'
• The feminine noun שטנה (sitna), denoting a kind of written accusation, or a Cease And Desist notice. This noun is used only once in the Bible, in Ezra 4:6.

None of the sources used make mention of a linguistic connection to the following words, but the letter nun is often placed after a root to create a phrase that isolates or personifies the conceptual action of the root. Whether this actually happened with the word שטן (satan) may be less important than any audience's supposition:

The verb שוט (sut) means swerve or fall away, as used in Psalm 40:4 (NAS: lapse; NIV: turn aside). Derivation שט (set) means swerver, revolter as used in Hosea 5:2.

The verb שטה (sata) means turn aside, turn, decline, and always from a good way into a bad one. HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament notes that the Aramaic cognate of this verb means to stray, and the Ethiopic one to be seduced.

In medieval times, our root began to be spelled with the letter שׂ (sin), as opposed to the letter שׁ (shin), thus forming the word שׂטן (satan). The letter ט (teth) is one of two t-sounds of the Hebrew alphabet, the other one being ת (taw). A verb that probably sounded quite similar to our word שׂטן (satan), meaning adversary, is שׁתן (shatan), meaning to urinate (1 Samuel 25:22, 1 Kings 14:10).

<<

 

[JimBowie1958]

In medieval times, our root began to be spelled with the letter שׂ (sin), as opposed to the letter שׁ (shin), thus forming the word שׂטן (satan)
<<

Is that a mistake or are the characters sin and shin that close in appearance?

I honestly cannot see a difference between them!