And as to why his followers didn't choose to die in the moment but were killed later, the simple answer to that is they believed in the message, so it made sense for them to live to carry it on as long as they could. But such radical messages of reform are dangerous, so their commitment to the cause was logically going to lead to their deaths, eventually. That level of commitment does not require witnessing a supernatural act. Many have died for causes they believe in. Not doing that needlessly, right away is not proof of initial cowardice; it could have simply been practicality. And maybe the religion wouldn't have survived and thrived had that not acted the way they did.
Gregg, let me ask you this, if you don't mind answering: do you think Christianity, as an ideology, a way of living, but devoid of the supernatural, devoid of the messenger being the one true son of God, is a way of living worth sharing? Do you think it represented an improvement at the time over how many then saw the world? Is Jesus' divinity essential to your identity as a Christian? Do you think it must have been essential to all of his earlier followers or they would not have risked their lives to spread the ideas for how to live that are embedded in the faith?
Gregg, let me ask you this, if you don't mind answering: do you think Christianity, as an ideology, a way of living, but devoid of the supernatural, devoid of the messenger being the one true son of God, is a way of living worth sharing? Do you think it represented an improvement at the time over how many then saw the world? Is Jesus' divinity essential to your identity as a Christian? Do you think it must have been essential to all of his earlier followers or they would not have risked their lives to spread the ideas for how to live that are embedded in the faith?
Comment