The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's interesting to note that according to tradition (and in the case of James, possible corroboration by Josephus) the three most prominent Apostles/Church Fathers are all executed in the years immediately prior to the Revolt (Peter and Paul in Rome, James in Jerusalem by the Jewish authorities).  The traditional dates for all of their deaths are in a fairly narrow 60-62 AD range.  

jmf, what Nathan's getting at is that James' church in Jerusalem (pretty much all converted from Jews, and as the Book of Acts argues, a flock extremely susceptible to Judaising) died alongside the Jews of Jerusalem during the Roman sack of the city.  Again, it's not a coup so much as the wiping out of the Jerusalem Church ending their side of a dispute between Gentile and Jewish Christianity by causing the latter ceasing to exist, leading the latter to become preeminent by default.

Well, the book of Acts was also written before the revolt, as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians and James' letter, and those books have James agreeing with the Law of Moses being superseded.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, the book of Acts was also written before the revolt, as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians and James' letter, and those books have James agreeing with the Law of Moses being superseded.

First off, the date of when Luke-Acts and the Epistle of James were written is disputed

Haven’t we gone through this before?  Weren’t you the one who claimed that the dating of the book of Acts, written as a history of the early church, has nothing to do with where the historical account of the book ends (with Paul awaiting trial)

The accuracy of the historical context of Luke and Acts

---

, and by no means is there anything close to agreement that they were written pre-Revolt.  I'll concede that point for now, as it does not help your argument in the least.  The people who followed a Jewish Christianity and thus their documents and traditions would be largely destroyed in the Jewish Revolts.  Arguing that an absence of evidence implies evidence of absence is not good logic.  Indeed, Paul's own letters indicate that there were a wide variety of early Christians, hence his need even at that early date to warn against what he viewed as error.

I have NEVER claimed there weren’t a bunch of heresies floating around the early church, of which included the topic of the Law of Moses.  In fact, my own testimony has me receiving the Holy Spirit after reading the book of Galatians…so I was born into the argument concerning the Law of Moses.

And it doesn’t matter if the documents of the Judaizers survived or not – the argument for and against have long been known.  And except people like Herbert Armstrong, a racist who committed incest with his own sister and authored a whole line of heresies, the argument for the continuation of the Law of Moses has been flatly rejected.

But if Luke-Acts and Paul writings weren’t the shared opinions of Peter/James/John, then how do you explain the accuracy of their historical content?  If they didn’t attain their info from being in the right hand of fellowship with the leadership of the church, then how did they glean it?  You think they gleaned their info by being stowaways in a Christian caravan and copying down secretively what they had heard and then went off and formed their own story using an accurate historical context but writing in their own theology?  

Either there was a coup against church leadership very very early on in church history, like around 40AD, or the NT represents the beliefs of the early church.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why the mention of Armstrong?  I think we can both agree he wasn't around in the 1st century. His personal repugnance has as much to do with whether Jewish Christianity is desirable as Hitler's evilness has to do with the desirability of vegetarianism.

only because you acted as if I wasn't aware of the history of Judaizers…not only am I aware of their recorded history in the NT, I also have had modern contact with them.

---

You also are taking a very illogical turn with your belief that establishing the historical veracity of one aspect of any a biblical book can be used to establish the historical veracity of other parts of that book, or worse that of the entire NT.  The most effective lies are mostly truth because it makes it easier for others to swallow the falsehood concealed within.  Therefore, each assertion of historical fact in the bible has to be judged on its own merits.  To do otherwise is to be acting on faith not logic.

Then please paint us a “corrected” historical record which allows Judaizers to be the real Christians and the writers of the NT to imposters.

In fact, why don’t you just skip straight to the scriptural proof and start with the OT and show how the current theology of the NT in regard to the Law of Moses being superseded is in error.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well if your modern contact with Judaizers has only been with Armstrongites, I can understand why they would leave you with an unfavorable impression.

it's along the lines of the same erroneous argument., Armstrong just added a bunch of other stuff on top of it.

---

I think we already had this debate over whether when God says something is perpetual or everlasting, does He mean it? Of course, the Law of Moses was established for the Hebrews, not humanity in general (save for its regulations concerning non-Hebrew interactions with Hebrews).  So Paul is correct that the Gentiles need not become Jews in order to receive God's grace, but it is an error to then go beyond that and assert that the Jews are no longer bound by the perpetual ordinances that were established for them, such as the Sabbath and circumcision.

If God intended the Jewish Christians to keep the Law of Moses, then why has God kept the Temple destroyed for 1940 years?  That a pretty big gap for something that was supposedly perpetual, and it is no accident that those lasting ceremonial were symbolic of what Christ did by dying 1910 years ago. .

Is Jesus not the Passover Lamb for Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians?  Why would Jewish Christians continue to offer lambs as sacrifice once the real Lamb of God was sacrificed.


Your picture of the NT church would have a room full of believers, both Jew and Gentile, with the Jewish believers getting up and sacrificing lambs and spreading around the blood of animals, while the Gentile believers eat popcorn and watch the Jewish believers prove they understand nothing about what Christ has already done:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly would be the purpose of continued animal sacrifice?  And are you saying you don’t believe in the Lord’s Supper, which was supposed to be done in memory of Christ fulfilling what these animal sacrifices foreshadowed?

And did it ever occur to you that these “lasting ordinances” symbolized what Jesus would personally do for all eternity?

obviously, I understand this whole argument isn’t going to persuade you, because your position is not based on logic – that’s the thing about Judaizers, they rather continue to observe the Law to make themselves feel important, rather than give all importance to Christ:

Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

But…hey…more power to you.
 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

since you disagree with a translation, then you need to be specific...which commands of the Law of Moses are you calling "perpetual or everlasting" and insisting that Jewish Christian, but not Gentile Christians, must still follow?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'll work you up a complete list of them when I have time.

you're going to parse the Law of Moses into two groups:  laws still in effect for Jews, laws no longer in effect for Jews?!

on what basis, exactly, are you parsing it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you lost me....what scripture gives you the right to keep some of the Law of Moses and yet ignore other parts of the Law of Moses?

Joshua1: 7 “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.  Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Have I not commanded you?"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

but what passage allows you to parse the Law of Moses when the scripture is clear it is to be treated as a whole?

Joshua 1:7 “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.  Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Have I not commanded you?"

Dt 27:26 "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Lev 18:5 "Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.

I've been on this forum for 10 years, and I have never treated the Law of Moses as anything other than a whole.  And I have also stated that the entire Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Christ and superceded by the New Covenant.

---

All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

so, you're admitting that nothing in the bible gives you permission to parse the Law of Moses, and that therefore you have no basis in doing so?  In fact, you're admitting that you don't even trust the scriptures?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Understood.  You claim the whole of the Mosaic Law is superseded.  Problem is, this contradicts what the Old Testament says.

Contradicts the OT?!  The OT states point blank that the Law of Moses will be considered broken and superseded by a New Covenant:

Jer 31:31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
   “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
   and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
   I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
   to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
   though I was a husband to them,”
            declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
   after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
   and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
   and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
   or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
   from the least of them to the greatest,”
            declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
   and will remember their sins no more.”

---

I don't consider anything written by Paul to be scripture.

Well, if you reject that the Law of Moses was superseded, you have to throw out the ENTIRE NT, not just Paul’s writings.

Mat 26: 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins….Mat 27: 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.  51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Mark 14: 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them…Mark 15: 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Luke 22:20 “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”…Luke 23:45 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

The fact that the curtain of the Temple which hid the Holy of Holies, the most holy place in the OT church, the abode of the presence of God, where the blood was placed on the Ark of the Covenant on the Day of Atonement, demonstrated that the sacrificial system of the Law of Moses was over.

So, that’s 3 out of 4 Gospels…

---

…and here’s Johnny:

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Jesus stated the true worshippers of God will no longer have to follow the Law of Moses and come to Jerusalem once a year – thus declaring that observance to the Feast of Tabernacles was no longer required of God’s people.

Then, in addition to the 12 letters of Paul and the 4 Gospels, you’d have to throw out the Book of Acts, because it approved of Paul…then you’d have to throw out the book of Hebrews because it states the whole Law of Moses has been superseded...and then you have to throw out the rest of the NT.

You will not find a single scripture, either in the OT or in the NT, which parses the Law of Moses.  Both OT and NT treat the Law of Moses as an indivisible unit.  And you certainly won’t find a passage which states only parts of the Law of Moses will be superseded.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?! 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?!  

How do Jewish Non-Christians handle it?  Simple, until the temple is restored, the sacrifices are on hold.  

You misunderstood my point – Matthew/Mark/Luke state that the veil tore, meaning that God’s presence is no longer to be found in the Holy of Holies, if it were still there, then the tearing of the veil would have killed everyone on the other side of the curtain (which was the purpose of the curtain to begin with).  So, if there is no longer any need for the Holy of Holies, then it doesn’t matter if the Temple is restored or not – there is simply nothing to restore for a Christian in regard to the Temple without the presence of God in the Holy of Holies.

Moreover, in the gospel of John, Jesus stated that we are now in a age where God’s worshippers are no longer required to go to Jerusalem – meaning its gonna be a tad difficult to go about the sacrifices in Jerusalem when God’s people aren’t even required to go to Jerusalem.  

But, in any case, I find this conversation quite illogical and unproductive...it doesn’t matter what the NT says, you’re going to stick to your view.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

While we agree that the rending of the veil signifies that God's presence left the Holy of Holies, we profoundly disagree on the reason why, and whether there will be a time He deems it proper to return.

well, considering it tore at the moment of Christ's death, it has everything to do with the New Covenant instituted by the death of Christ, which is exactly what he stated during the Last Supper - "take this and drink it, this is the blood of the new covenant"

and another point – I have repeatedly ignored your attempts to claim I am saying ALL previous covenants of God were superseded by the New Covenant….but I have NEVER made that argument, rather I am only referring to the Law of Moses (the covenant made at Mt Sinai) .

---

Going off on a tangent, are you one of those who believe that a Temple rebuilt by non-Christian Jews is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ?  (While you've probably answered this before, I don't recall your answer.)

Yep, for that is the location from where the antichrist will be ruling when Christ returns, and will be the location where Christ will rule during his 1000 year reign on earth.

Zechariah 14:16 “Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.  If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain.”

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

another point – I have repeatedly ignored your attempts to claim I am saying ALL previous covenants of God were superseded by the New Covenant….but I have NEVER made that argument, rather I am only referring to the Law of Moses (the covenant made at Mt Sinai) .

So you believe that Jews still need to circumcise?  I was under the impression that you thought they did not, yet circumcision is part of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Mosaic one.

Christ is now the one doing the circumcision, as was prophesied in the Law of Moses:

Deut 30:6 “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”

---

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?
 

The context of Zechariah 14:16 is clearly AFTER Christ is physically ruling from Jerusalem (post church age), and the context of John 4 of not having to go up to Jerusalem is a statement regarding the Church Age.

Surely, you are aware of this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?
 

The context of Zechariah 14:16 is clearly AFTER Christ is physically ruling from Jerusalem (post church age), and the context of John 4 of not having to go up to Jerusalem is a statement regarding the Church Age.

Then for once, we are in general agreement, tho we definitely differ on the details.

Except for two facts:

1) Zech has the GENTILES coming to Jerusalem and celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Church Age…yet you say the Jews, and only the Jews, are suppose to keep those feasts DURING the Church Age, when that is both physically (there is no Temple) and theologically (the veil has been torn from the onset of the Church Age) impossible.

2) My view (shared by 99% of Christianity) is in agreement with the NT…and you are admittedly and purposely in disagreeing with the NT.

---

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?:

Though I would want more time to study the passages in question before asserting that this is how they should be resolved…

It’s as if you are a purposely hundreds of miles away from civilization, claiming you know exactly where you are…then along comes some random hiker who points out that you have your map upside down and you respond, “Oh, thanks, I never noticed that…but I can assure you, I still know where I am!”

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Zech has the GENTILES coming to Jerusalem and celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Church Age…yet you say the Jews, and only the Jews, are suppose to keep those feasts DURING the Church Age, when that is both physically (there is no Temple) and theologically (the veil has been torn from the onset of the Church Age) impossible.

No, not during the present time, since we are in a temple interregnum, as has happened before.

By your argument, the need to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles ended with the destruction of the First Temple, since they were impossible, and yet they resumed.  We are in a temple interregnum and we do not and will not know when the interregnum shall end ...

Whoa, there, you’re muddying the waters.

During the religious “economy” of the Law of Moses (prior to Christ’s death), the Feast of Tabernacles was a feast for the Jews, not Gentiles…(that is DIFFERENT than Zech 14:16 which has all the nations observing the Feast of Tabernacles.)

Once Christ died, a new spiritual “economy” was instituted (the New Covenant), which superseded the ENTIRE Law of Moses and made it so that NO ONE had to go to Jerusalem to worship (John 4:21), as the Spirit of God was no longer in the Holy of Holies (the veil was torn).  Instead, the Holy Spirit is available to believers of any race, located in any nation.  In order to demonstrate that the Temple was no longer needed, God had it destroyed in 70AD.

In the run up to Christ’s return, the Temple will be rebuilt by the Jews (but NOT by Christians, who have no need for it), and the Antichrist come and rule from the Temple, proclaiming himself to be God.  Upon the return of Christ, at the end of the Church Age and marking the beginning of his 1000 year reign, the Antichrist will be destroyed and Jesus will cleanse the Temple.

After cleansing the Temple, Christ will establish his earthly dominion and yet another religious “economy” will be instituted:  Jesus himself will be ruling from Jerusalem, life spans of humans will be increased, the vegetarian diet prior to Noah which Adam had will be brought back (which is NOT the Law of Moses, but rather is pre-Law), the Gentile survivors will journey to Jerusalem to celebrate and bring into reality what was always symbolized in the Feast of Tabernacles.

---

But you have the whole timeline mixed up since you believe the Law of Moses is in effect for Jews during the Church Age, which is why you have to reject much of the NT  and you’ve concocted an elaborate conspiracy to explain how Paul supposedly overthrew the original church leadership.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?

I haven't had the chance to study the minor prophets in detail.  I've focused my energies to date on the core portions of both the Old and New Testament, the Torah and the Gospels, as without them there can be no firm foundation.

So, just to be clear:  you are a Christian who rejects the arguments of the NT regarding the superseded of the Law of Moses, because you believe you know more than the early church authors of the NT about God’s intentions…yet you haven’t even read the entire bible, much less made a working model of what the bible says.

What, exactly, started you down this path?  Did you just wake up one morning and decide, “Hey, even though I haven’t read the bible, I’m going to oppose the NT and invent a conspiracy to explain it”?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It’s still a conspiracy: post-Revolt, you’re saying the remnants of the supposed true Christianity were pushed aside.  But, how exactly would the Jewish Revolts and the destruction of Jerusalem have helped Paul’s supposedly false Christianity, when it is historically clear as day that Christianity had spread throughout the entire Mediterranean by 70AD?  Was Paul the only Apostle who traveled outside of Jerusalem?

---

Final question:

If Jesus stated in John 4:21 that the Church Age would not include the requirement of any believer to worship in Jerusalem (which wipe outs many of the Law’s “perpetual” requirements from the Church Age)…why do you claim Jewish Christians are still required to obey the rest of the Law of Moses during the Church Age?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Was Paul the only Apostle who traveled outside of Jerusalem?

Leaving aside that Paul's status as an apostle depends on how you define the term, no.  However Paul was definitely the most prominent of the Gentilizers, and the Jewish Revolts definitely tilted the tables in favor of the Gentilizers over the Judaizers and the Moderates, both because the latter two suffered disproportionate losses, but also it made being a Jew of any belief hazardous.

So, again, you’re saying that Paul out hustled the sum total of all the original Christians (e.g. Peter, John, James, etc, etc, etc).

Did it ever occur to you that if your version of the Gospel is correct, then it invalidates much of Jesus’ prophecies concerning the spread of the Gospel?

---

I don't see the Messianic Covenant as a replacement for any covenant, but as an addition to the existing covenants.

A belief for which you have no scriptural evidence.  And the evidence that you do claim based on “perpetual” sections of the Law of Moses is INVALIDATED by Jesus’ own statement in John 4:21 (no need for God’s people to worship in Jerusalem) and the veil being torn (Holy of Holies made irrelevant), which nullify several of those very same “perpetual” sections.

The whole basis of your “perpetual” argument is shown to run contrary to the historical (~30AD) events and statements recorded in all 4 gospels, events that were 40 years PRIOR to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

John 4:21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Nor did the veil wait until 70AD to be torn, rather it did so at the moment of Christ’s death:  Mat 26:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…Mark 15: 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…Luke 23:45 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

---

For the observance of the Mosaic Law, the situation in the Church Age is analogous to that of the Babylonian Captivity. Jews are to follow the Law to the best of their ability to do so.

Again, you have no scriptural basis equating the Church Age to the Babylonian Captivity in regard to the requirements of the Jews…what’s more, the requirements of Jewish Christians changed at the death of Christ (~30AD), not at the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1Cor 1:20 “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?”

…looks like we found the one Paul wrote about:

I went to graduate school for this and will get into such details later. Perhaps I'll begin to post my own topics on here. My expertise is the spread of early Christianity and its conflicts with paganism and Rome.

Then what does that make me…Mrs. Nesbitt?!  Sorry, I am just a little depressed, that's all. I..I..I can get through this.. Oh, I'm a sham! ...Years of at home scriptural training in splendid isolation with supplemental Dinner Doodles, wasted!

But the moniker ‘jmfcst’ looked good? Tell me the moniker looked good. The ‘consigliere’ title is a bit much, but…

---

As for the historical Jesus, the gospel writers' main focuses were rallying people in a post-war era. Mark however was wartime literature. Pay attention to all the conflicts Jesus gets into with Jewish leaders. It was simply the authors of the gospels plugging Jesus into their own times. For example, Barabbas's character likely comes from the author of Mark seeing his fellow Jews siding with murderers rather than the Son of God as a result of the war. Alright I'll start posting topics because now I'm rambling.

…but, wait…you earned a post-graduate degree in conjecture?! 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This has probably already been covered in some form in such a long thread, but I've always assumed Christianity spread because of its apocalyptic urgency.   Many early Christians and those who were around Jesus during his lifetime were giving the impression that his arrival meant the world would end before the end of the first century.  We've all seen how the strangest cults have risen swiftly on the same promises in modern times.  Not even Mormonism, but weird Baptist faction "prophets" like Michael Traverser.  That's enough to make it spread quickly and for Romans to fear it creating unnecessary panic in the empire.

You stated three things:

1)   Christianity spread because of its apocalyptic urgency

2)   Many early Christians and those who were around Jesus during his lifetime were giving the impression that his arrival meant the world would end before the end of the first century.

3)   That's enough to make it spread quickly and for Romans to fear it creating unnecessary panic in the empire.

So, allow me to retort:

Rebuttal of 1) the NT itself states that it spread rapidly, in part, due to persecution of Christians (the scattering of the early church meant believers were driven out of Jerusalem and into other towns and countries)

e.g. Phil 1:12 “Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.”

Rebuttal of 2) this misinterpretation is itself addressed in the NT:

e.g. John 21:20-22 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”  22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

e.g. 1Thes 5:1 “Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

e.g. 2Thes 2:1 “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.”

Rebuttal of Point 3)  what is the evidence that the Roman reaction to Christianity was due to this supposed panic among Christians?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Maybe I misunderstood your response, but Biblical retort to the attitude of 1st AD Christianity is kind of silly isn't it?  There was no NT formed yet and it likely all spread through word of mouth. 

so, the Apostles never wrote letters of instructions to the churches?!  That's quite old because Clement of Rome in a letter written around 96AD refereces letters written by the Apostles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I mean seriously, jmfcst, before the printing press, the Bible that reached the public said only whatever the Catholic hierarchy wanted it to say.

you do know we have very early and extensive copies of the NT letters from pieces of surviving manuscripts and from quoted references, right?

---

 In 1 AD? All of those letters only had one copy--the original, were only viewed by the recipient, and were at that person's discretion to heed all of it.  

As if there was something about the late 1st Century that stopped people from making copies of the letters?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

@King,

are you saying that the following is unlikely in the 1st Century?:

early Christian churches had letters written to them by the Apostles, these letters were copied and shared with other churches both near and far...and that some of these letters were widely circulated enough that they were widely known by the end of the 1st Century.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just for this I'm posting about Pontius Pilate soon.

So you say. Nice to meet you; hope you're intelligent...So what's on your mind kimosabe? Why am I listening to you?...Got to monitor my blood pressure, so whatever you do, don't upset me.