Why Christianity grew so fast

[RGacky3]

I cut off the majority of your post because my answer as to why Christianity spread so fast is very easy to answer. Because in the post Roman world, they saw Jesus and Christianity as the ultimate warrior religion, with Jesus being a man who was so powerful that he could defeat death itself. That and the politics of the Dark Ages helped of course. After that, it was all about trade which was dominated by the Europeans. And the rest is history.

I'm talking about it's Growth pre-Constantine ....

Please read the rest of the post if you're going to respond to it legitimately.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

I'm talking about it's Growth pre-Constantine ....

Please read the rest of the post if you're going to respond to it legitimately.

Then if that's all you were referring to, it didn't really grow that fast. I mean it took 300 years for an emperor to tell his empire to convert. Not like that actually had everyone convert over night though.

 

[cpwill]

just like crusaders and colonialists

Which occurred centuries later

 

[RGacky3]

Then if that's all you were referring to, it didn't really grow that fast. I mean it took 300 years for an emperor to tell his empire to convert. Not like that actually had everyone convert over night though.

Actually it did grow extremely fast .... from maybe 100 or so People after Jesus' Death, to from 10-15% of the entire Roman empire by the time of Constantine ....

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Actually it did grow extremely fast .... from maybe 100 or so People after Jesus' Death, to from 10-15% of the entire Roman empire by the time of Constantine ....

Would you agree though that it's growth accelerated far faster after the fall of Rome in the late 400's?

 

[RGacky3]

Would you agree though that it's growth accelerated far faster after the fall of Rome in the late 400's?

I would assume so ... But, that isn't what I'm talking about .... BTW, nor does state support really explain it, There was state support prior to many different cults at different times .... But either way, the point is the explosive and amazing Growth prior to Constantine ... from about 100 or so, to 10-15% of the Roman empire and Beyond in less than 300 years is a huge huge rate of Growth.

but honestly ... it's kind of silly for us to be discussing my OP, if you haven't read my OP.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Now Christianity went from a rag tag bunch of messianic nobodies in palestine, to being about 8-10% of the empire by the time Constantine came into Power. That's a HUGE Growth.

All things considered, you could have stopped right here and said little else.

Christianity's initial explosive growth has a direct tie to a few choices made within an empire, and had additional growth under yet another empire. Which is to say a sociological reason for expansion in the context of governmental power benefits in direct sponsorship of a core system of belief. That merger of government systems with belief systems that allowed for centralization that an empire demands, while still obtaining reasonable controls far away from source. Or, early versions of theocracy. Just like Islam under some other set of empires, monotheism had many products of the period and shored up several problematic conditions of polytheism. There is real reason that Christianity spread west, Islam went east and south, and Judaism ended up sprinkled all over the region.

Follow an empire's decisions, growth, then fall, then whom took over and you have direct reason for how monotheism spread and under what banner. Once the transition to monotheism was more mature we introduced a new set of complications from centralized but empire thinking, competition on the world stage in who has it most accurate on there being one God. And similar to the days of polytheism but now more pronounced, we started killing each other to prove our case on theological grounds.

 

[RGacky3]

All things considered, you could have stopped right here and said little else.

Christianity's initial explosive growth has a direct tie to a few choices made within an empire, and had additional growth under yet another empire. Which is to say a sociological reason for expansion in the context of governmental power benefits in direct sponsorship of a core system of belief. That merger of government systems with belief systems that allowed for centralization that an empire demands, while still obtaining reasonable controls far away from source. Or, early versions of theocracy. Just like Islam under some other set of empires, monotheism had many products of the period and shored up several problematic conditions of polytheism. There is real reason that Christianity spread west, Islam went east and south, and Judaism ended up sprinkled all over the region. Follow an empire's growth and fall, then whom took over and you have direct reason for how Monotheism spread and under what banner. Once the transition to monotheism was more mature we introduced a new set of complications from centralized but empire thinking, competition on the world stage in who has it most accurate on there being one God. And similar to the days of polytheism but now more pronounced, we started killing each other to prove our case.

The thread is about Christianities Growth PRE-CONSTANTINE ... For goodness sakes, why don't People read the OP ... What part of "by the time Constantine came into Power" is not Clear?

 

[Hamster Buddha]

I would assume so ... But, that isn't what I'm talking about .... BTW, nor does state support really explain it, There was state support prior to many different cults at different times .... But either way, the point is the explosive and amazing Growth prior to Constantine ... from about 100 or so, to 10-15% of the Roman empire and Beyond in less than 300 years is a huge huge rate of Growth.

but honestly ... it's kind of silly for us to be discussing my OP, if you haven't read my OP.

Just because I didn't quote it all doesn't mean I didn't read it. It may sound weird, but aesthetically speaking, it looked weird for me to re-post everything you put to just add a couple of lines.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The thread is about Christianities Growth PRE-CONSTANTINE ... For goodness sakes, why don't People read the OP ... What part of "by the time Constantine came into Power" is not Clear?

What I am saying is without Constantine there was little chance for Christianity to take advantage of that empire.

 

[RGacky3]

What I am saying is without Constantine there was little chance for Christianity to take advantage of that empire.

Ok ... Nothing to do With this thread.

 

[RGacky3]

Just because I didn't quote it all doesn't mean I didn't read it. It may sound weird, but aesthetically speaking, it looked weird for me to re-post everything you put to just add a couple of lines.

Fair enough, but you haven't actually dealt With anything in the OP, since the OP was about the pre-Constantine Growth.

 

[Caine]

For ****s sake ... THE BIBLE IS NOT ONE BOOK!!!!

People lump it together for theological reasons, but for historical reasons you CANNOT lump it all together.

Some of it is poetry, some of it is history, some of it is Mythology, some of it is legal documents, some of it is biography, some of it is epistles, some of it is wisdom literature, some of it is apocalypse literature ...

That is convenient, so that when one part of it comes under scrutiny you can claim its metaphorical in nature or mythological in nature and should be interpreted differently, while other parts are said to be taken literally.

 

[RGacky3]

That is convenient, so that when one part of it comes under scrutiny you can claim its metaphorical in nature or mythological in nature and should be interpreted differently, while other parts are said to be taken literally.

ummm ... Yes .... becuase it isn't one book, it's a Collection of different books written and different times by different People for different purposes ....

A book of poetry should be interpreted differently than a biography yes ... and a history should be interpreted differently than a allegorical story yes.

 

[Caine]

ummm ... Yes .... becuase it isn't one book, it's a Collection of different books written and different times by different People for different purposes ....

A book of poetry should be interpreted differently than a biography yes ... and a history should be interpreted differently than a allegorical story yes.

Im speaking more along the lines of what one should or should not do, as commanded (yet outside of the commandments) in the various books that make up the Bible. And how some of those are taken literally, and some of those are turned into "Well, what they REALLY meant was....."

Christians tend to do that to the most deplorable parts of the bible.

 

[RGacky3]

Im speaking more along the lines of what one should or should not do, as commanded (yet outside of the commandments) in the various books that make up the Bible. And how some of those are taken literally, and some of those are turned into "Well, what they REALLY meant was....."

Christians tend to do that to the most deplorable parts of the bible.

Well ... you have to do it exegetically and historically and do theology.

So lets take the mosaic commandments, from a Christian (and a Jewish) standpoint, non Jews are exempt from the mosaic Law period .... even those who worship the jewish god, unless they become proselites to Judaism they are not bound by those laws. In the 1rst Century Church there was a debate as to whether non Jews who became Christians had to follow the Law, the answer was no (except for a few that would apply universally, as well as certain principles), this is all recorded in the Pauline letters, Acts, James, and other writings in the New testament and out.

The only question comes about what if someone is a Jew that converts to Christianity, almost all Christians would argue that the mosaic Law does not apply post messiah (most Jews would also agree. the jews however don't consider Jesus to BE the messiah so they hold on to the mosaic Law), this is also biblical.

Now if someone is going to just open up the bible, pick up a verse, and say "aha you christians eat shrimp, and the bible says not to." ignoring context, intent, later explination of such verse, the Scope of such verse and the theology surrounding it, they're being stupid .... as stupid as someone going to an evolutionist and say "my grandfather aint a monkey." Sorry if you're saying that you don't know how evolution Works one bit, and People who say "ahh you christians eat shimp, you're against the bible." Don't know how biblical exegesis or theology work one bit.

 

[RAMOSS]

Being written by eye witnesses doesn't mean the same thing as having eye witness testimony. So for exmaple the irrelevant details is a dead give away that this tradition is from an eye witness, the same that goes With the use of names With the assumption the audience would know them.

Richard baukham Points out the "mistakes" in geography, are not actual mistakes when you take into account the perspective of the writers, they wern't geographers, they didn't have maps, they were writing from the perspective of peasent galilean fishermen ....

You have yet to show that any of the books in the bible is from eye witness testimony. And, it seems like Richard Baukham is making excuses up, to try to explain away something that is pretty damn obvious. His argument is not convincing.

For one thing, that would assuming that the fisherman were STUPID. If they were eye witnesses, they would be with him, and would know what towns they passed through. You don't have to be a geographer to know where and when you passed through a town. Next, it is ignoring Church tradition. According to church tradition, the Gospel of Mark was written by a disciple of Peter after Peter passed. Church tradition has it that the Gospel of Mark was not written by an eye witness. Church tradition says it was written by someone who knew someone who was supposed to have been an eye witness, and wrote it down from stories told. That is classic hearsay.

 

[RGacky3]

You have yet to show that any of the books in the bible is from eye witness testimony. And, it seems like Richard Baukham is making excuses up, to try to explain away something that is pretty damn obvious. His argument is not convincing.

For one thing, that would assuming that the fisherman were STUPID. If they were eye witnesses, they would be with him, and would know what towns they passed through. You don't have to be a geographer to know where and when you passed through a town. Next, it is ignoring Church tradition. According to church tradition, the Gospel of Mark was written by a disciple of Peter after Peter passed. Church tradition has it that the Gospel of Mark was not written by an eye witness. Church tradition says it was written by someone who knew someone who was supposed to have been an eye witness, and wrote it down from stories told. That is classic hearsay.

No it doesn' assume the fishermen were stupid .... geography on the ground With peasants is different than geography on a map, the same goes With names of Places, it's not as easy as just looking at a map and saying "they got it wrong." Hell if everything just fit on a map perfectly, one would probably assume that's where it was from, rather than actual memories of travels.

I'm not saying they were written by eye witnesses, I'm saying they have EYE WITNESS TRADITIONS .....

If you're interested (I doubt you are) read Richard Barkhams "Jesus and the eye witnesses," maybe to suppliment Your Rirchard Carrier books .

 

[zyzygy]

Well ... you have to do it exegetically and historically and do theology.

So lets take the mosaic commandments, from a Christian (and a Jewish) standpoint, non Jews are exempt from the mosaic Law period .... even those who worship the jewish god, unless they become proselites to Judaism they are not bound by those laws. In the 1rst Century Church there was a debate as to whether non Jews who became Christians had to follow the Law, the answer was no (except for a few that would apply universally, as well as certain principles), this is all recorded in the Pauline letters, Acts, James, and other writings in the New testament and out.

The only question comes about what if someone is a Jew that converts to Christianity, almost all Christians would argue that the mosaic Law does not apply post messiah (most Jews would also agree. the jews however don't consider Jesus to BE the messiah so they hold on to the mosaic Law), this is also biblical.

Now if someone is going to just open up the bible, pick up a verse, and say "aha you christians eat shrimp, and the bible says not to." ignoring context, intent, later explination of such verse, the Scope of such verse and the theology surrounding it, they're being stupid .... as stupid as someone going to an evolutionist and say "my grandfather aint a monkey." Sorry if you're saying that you don't know how evolution Works one bit, and People who say "ahh you christians eat shimp, you're against the bible." Don't know how biblical exegesis or theology work one bit.

How do you turn god telling you not to eat shrimp into god allowing you to eat shrimp? Why don't the rabid anti-gay fundies do the same thing?

 

[RAMOSS]

No it doesn' assume the fishermen were stupid .... geography on the ground With peasants is different than geography on a map, the same goes With names of Places, it's not as easy as just looking at a map and saying "they got it wrong." Hell if everything just fit on a map perfectly, one would probably assume that's where it was from, rather than actual memories of travels.

I'm not saying they were written by eye witnesses, I'm saying they have EYE WITNESS TRADITIONS .....

If you're interested (I doubt you are) read Richard Barkhams "Jesus and the eye witnesses," maybe to suppliment Your Rirchard Carrier books .

You don't understand now do you. If they are 'eyewitness traditions', then they aren't eye witnesses.

 

[Paralogic]

... "Christianity grew REALLY REALLY fast, ...

It didn't. It took several hundreds of years to take a hold of people's fears and worries to subject them to eternal servitude to the ones that claimed they are superior.

 

[zyzygy]

It didn't. It took several hundreds of years to take a hold of people's fears and worries to subject them to eternal servitude to the ones that claimed they are superior.

It did take quite a while for the early church to usurp the pagan holy days. If you can't beat them, join them.

 

[RGacky3]

How do you turn god telling you not to eat shrimp into god allowing you to eat shrimp? Why don't the rabid anti-gay fundies do the same thing?

Because I "as a non Jew" was NEVER required to not eat shrimp first of all.

Second of all, the Law code was fulfilled in Jesus, but certain Things were reiterated as eternal moral principles within the scriptures themselves.

 

[RGacky3]

It didn't. It took several hundreds of years to take a hold of people's fears and worries to subject them to eternal servitude to the ones that claimed they are superior.

Going from perhpas one or two hundred People, if that, to 10% of the Roman empire, in less than 300 years, dispite being an illegal religion is quite fast.

 

[LowDown]

Christianity appealed strongly to disaffected populations in the Roman Empire, which made up a majority of those who lived there. Paganism was more of a civic duty to Romans than a religion. Few Romans actually believed in the Gods. There was a sense that only the patricians of Rome had a legitimate claim on paganism. The pagan gods would take little heed of common people, so the common people needed a god to watch over them. That's what Christianity provided along with a revolutionary idea -- that all people are worthy of God's love and attention, the poor and downtrodden especially so. As Christianity became the dominant religion in the Empire the leaders gained a sense of responsibility for the poor and downtrodden that they may not have had before. That's not to say that pagan Rome had no charity, but that charity was more of the patron-client sort previously. If you were not potentially useful to some powerful patron you were pretty much out of luck.

Nietzsche was correct to call Christianity a "slave religion". One can see how it would appeal especially to people on the bottom rungs of a society. In a highly hierarchical society like the Roman Empire it would spread like wildfire.