Latest British Social Survey finds 52% of the Country are non Religious

[Rjk]

I agree that people down the pub may embellish stories of course but that doesn't answer my question about who were these people who so-called "stood to benefit" in the early days of the Christian church? The inescapable fact is that the Christian church came into being very soon after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Why would those early apostles initiate and perpetuate a movement based on something which they knew was untrue – again, where was the “benefit” to them knowing that they risked death or persecution by being involved?

Clearly there is a benefit if you are at the head of a small but growing splinter religion to convince as many more people to join by sexing its history up a bit. Even if they risked death or persecution by being involved. There are groups that are still doing it today, being a member of something like ISIS in a western country or indeed most countries will unsurprisingly not work well in your favour if it comes out, but that doesn't men they aren't there. And do they embellish history and current events to become more effective anti west propaganda - absolutely. I'm sure most of them absolutely believe they are doing the right thing. And those at the top will absolutely want to retain and extend their power. Whether the early apostles really believed in the "magic" jesus stories, or they just really believed in what he stood for before his execution and would happily lean into the magic stuff if they thought it would help their ultimate cause. A very different example, but you see all kinds of spurious "evidence" all over the internet on just about any controversial subject or conspiracy theory:- plandemic/pandemic, palestine v israel, brexit and anything else you can think of. We've all probably seen bogus information being gleefully shared on any of these topics - the people who generated the original items must surely know that they are making it up? but they think the end justifies the means, or they believe it to be true, so they will fabricate some "evidence" for it so other people can find the "truth" . So the argument that the resurrection etc must have happened because the people who said it did risked being executed by just being involved doesn't really follow for me. If they are motivated to make their cause succeed - whether thats for personal power, or a belief in doing the right thing then people are definitely able to lean into a narrative that they know deep down isnt true, or are able to suspend their disbelief entirely.

[Gofer Blue]

Clearly there is a benefit if you are at the head of a small but growing splinter religion to convince as many more people to join by sexing its history up a bit. Even if they risked death or persecution by being involved. There are groups that are still doing it today, being a member of something like ISIS in a western country or indeed most countries will unsurprisingly not work well in your favour if it comes out, but that doesn't men they aren't there. And do they embellish history and current events to become more effective anti west propaganda - absolutely. I'm sure most of them absolutely believe they are doing the right thing. And those at the top will absolutely want to retain and extend their power. Whether the early apostles really believed in the "magic" jesus stories, or they just really believed in what he stood for before his execution and would happily lean into the magic stuff if they thought it would help their ultimate cause. A very different example, but you see all kinds of spurious "evidence" all over the internet on just about any controversial subject or conspiracy theory:- plandemic/pandemic, palestine v israel, brexit and anything else you can think of. We've all probably seen bogus information being gleefully shared on any of these topics - the people who generated the original items must surely know that they are making it up? but they think the end justifies the means, or they believe it to be true, so they will fabricate some "evidence" for it so other people can find the "truth" . So the argument that the resurrection etc must have happened because the people who said it did risked being executed by just being involved doesn't really follow for me. If they are motivated to make their cause succeed - whether thats for personal power, or a belief in doing the right thing then people are definitely able to lean into a narrative that they know deep down isnt true, or are able to suspend their disbelief entirely.

There we go once more. For the umpteenth time of asking - who were these so-called "people at the top"? The early church was just a collection of ordinary people who met in each other's homes. This is from Acts 4, 32-35:

“Now the large group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And the apostles were giving testimony with great power to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed for each person’s basic needs.”

These verses are part of a consistent New Testament picture that points to radical generosity, self-sacrifice, and concern for others over ourselves. Further, they point also to the New Testament emphasis on the local church as an intimately connected faith community in stark contrast to the world around them. Does this sound like a bunch of people "at the top" manipulating others?

How can you compare this group of people with ISIS!!