All 11 eleven of them...some had to believe their story. Then they told others and they believed their story, and so on. But real eyewitnesses there were none. The truth is, other than those eleven (even if there were eleven), millions believed someone else's story and none, save for the eleven were there when this allegedly happened, and even they didn't see it.
Of the NT writers, only Matthew and John are alleged eyewitnesses (assuming they actually wrote anything). The rest are 2nd and 3rd tier believers. Paul basically has his own story and he is his only witness, so take it or leave it! The the remaining nine alleged eyewitnesses never wrote anything.
The initial success had to do with the mass hysteria with mystery religions that pervaded the Middle East about an imminent 'end of times.' Paul actually believed and taught that the end of times already started by belief, which he never witnessed of course, that Jesus resurrected from the dead.
By the time this hysteria began to ebb, at the end of the century, the Church introduced (conveniently) the first Epistle of Peter which re-set the Rapture Clock and called on patience.
Some time ago, I looked for the agreed upon "facts", by all reputable, Christian and non, about Jesus. What I found was "A man called Jesus existed and was thought to be a miracle worker."
That's at best. Actually, someone would be hard pressed to even demonstrate by any reliable source that historical Jesus actually existed.
From the scriptural sources, the most reliable thing we have is the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes.
Why is that "reliable?" I personally find it most beautiful but I can't place reliability on it.
If it is research is about God, as God is described in the basic, then I posit it is a search for truth. And if it is a search for truth then we have other sources to check. If we wish to know if what we say Jesus taught is true - of God - then we measure it against other sources.
Which sources? In order to search for God we would have to know what God is, in order to recognize God when we find him. If you don't know what is human how will you recognize a human? You could be staring him in the face and not know it. Essence before substance. Nature before form.
And maybe one way to judge for ourselves the validity of the gospel account of Jesus is to try looking as Jesus looked - according to them
I am not sure I follow you here.
There were some eyewitnesses, Occam's razor, likely some. And others believed some of what they said, or trusted their believability or something, whatever, enough to give it legs.
had to do with the mass hysteria with mystery religions that pervaded the Middle East about an imminent 'end of times.
No doubt a factor, as we can see in our own world today. How much so, to what extent, in what direction, which part, all, some... likely impossible to know.
at the end of the century, the Church introduced (conveniently) the first Epistle of Peter which re-set the Rapture Clock
For sure, a major part of what had become "the story" was no longer "operative". Major adjustment time. A lot of religions don't survive long past this point.
Actually, someone would be hard pressed to even demonstrate by any reliable source that historical Jesus actually existed.
I certainly trust you to do your own research. I did mine, and I was an atheist at the time and no slouch in historical research. That's what I ended up with; not to infer anyone else should take it on my word.
Why is that [the beatitudes] "reliable?"
It's been too long ago for me to cite, but it has to do with consistency and multiple sources among, I believe, other reasons. If you had to pick the most likely true from all of Jesus' sayings in scripture it would be the most reliable, relatively, of the bunch. For me this is very important. I'm most interested in boiling it down to what he taught.
Which sources?
Mainly, reality. I'm not trying to be trite, but I'm saying what you said: truth is all around us. LIes are man-made, reality is, well, all that is real. Man's search is for what is real and true. We give meaning to this, whether it results in life has no meaning, knowing this still has meaning to us. Truth. Reality. What is real.
In order to search for God we would have to know what God is, in order to recognize God when we find him.
There is one act of faith, well, not really even faith, just a definition. They say: God is truth. Ok, forget the God part. Look for truth. If "they" are right and God is truth then when you find truth...By truth here I mean reality - how the universe really is.
There is what's real and what humans see as real or true. Not all humans see reality the same - not even close if you include the full range of humanity. Is the cosmos random or ordered, its it an adversary or ally, is life special or cursed, is compassion an objective force or an illusion... There is a human filter in between us and our connection to the rest of the universe.
The true purpose of religion is the same as the purpose of all human seeking for truth whether it is science or logic or sense experience or full human knowing using all capacities - what is true, what is real. Religion, praxis here, is another method, another experiment, another instrument for looking at the same reality.
You could be staring him in the face and not know it.
Honestly, we really are. And you can read Jesus, among many others, saying exactly that.
I am not sure I follow you here.
Imagine a hack writer interviewed the early followers of Jesus around and wrote the most sensational best seller. Then try to remove the hack from the story and hear the imploringa of Jesus. You can hear him saying: Do this, see this, don't do this, remove this, stop this, drop that... and then YOU will see - for yourself.
My point again is if you are not the type to accept on faith, and I think neither of us are, then there is another way to at least attempt to learn more about who Jesus was/is and how he relates to God as/if he said. And that is to follow his instructions - as best we can and see for ourself.
No belief required.