You are wrong.

Christianity's spread through the Roman Empire in such a short time is recognized by believing and secular historians alike. Many actually believe that Constantine converted BECAUSE he recognized the gaining strength of Christianity.

Yes, Islam has a dynamic message. I would, however, differintiate the two. Conversion by warfare and coercion was a part of Islam's initial stages of growth, although such an explanation would indeed fall short of explaining its durability.

The History of Christianity, , Dr. Tim Dowley, Ed.:

"By the middle of the second century, litte more than a hundred years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, flourshing churches existed in nearly all the provinces between Syria and Rome. Though their origins are shrouded in obscurity, there were probably also churches in the great cities of Alexandria and Carthage, as well as beyond the eastern fringes of the Empire and in Gaul (modern France).

A century later a significant Christian minority existed in almost every province of the Empire and also in several countries to the East. After another fifty years, around AD 300, Christians formed a majority in parts of the provinces of Africa and Asia Minor. In addition, Osrhoene, with its capital of Edessa, adopted Christianity nationally, as did Armenia later."

Pg. 66.

I see you have decided to ignore what I've said and build a strawman. Very well. But if that's what you're going to do, why are you here?

That's because it is irrelevant to this topic. If you wish to discuss this, I will certainly oblige.

Irrelevant.


I have not said anything about numbers. Do I smell straw?

1. I would hardly call christianity predominant. It encompasses less than 30% of the population.

2. The spread of christianity has little to do with the bible, and more to do with the methods of various missionaries and whatnot.

No, it didn't. Constantine converted. That's it.

This is also irrelevant.

That's not the point. If it was in mathematics, it would not be open to interpretation, errors would be easy to spot, etc.

Yep, that's definitely straw I smell.

And how do you decide "what IS true?"

If you base your judgments on the veracity of biblical statements on historical inquiry, then you must believe very little of it indeed. The resurrection, for example, is wholey uncorraborated.

Jesus is quoted as saying contradictory things in the NT.

Oh, I get it now layman. "Spread like wildfire" can be up to and including 150 years. And this is supposed to be quick?

It was you who stated that "all the apostles were illiterate." I was very carefull to keep my phrasing open, in that a Doctor and a Tax collector probably knew how to read at least one language. In that day and age, "Educated" implied a working knowlege of several languages.

Maby, because you are a "layman" you are particularly sensative when it comes to this subject. I will try to be more conciderate next time.

-dips on still water

"It was you who stated that "all the apostles were illiterate." I was very carefull to keep my phrasing open."

I did? Where? I really don't remember saying they were all illiterate. However, if you can show me where I said it I will gladly retract.

"Second, you are only speculating that all 12 deciples are illiterate."

This is not what I orriginally posted, so you must have come up with it yourself. Take a look at what I posted before hand.

Gracias

If you are going to accuse me of building a strawman, at least oblige me and make it clear what you think it is.

As for Christianity being "predominant," don't make yourself look silly. Christianity is more widespread than its closest two competitors, Islam and Hinduism, combined. If you want to quibble about the term "predominant" then you will have to do so without further comment from me.

And I agree with the first part of your second point. My point is that God made himself known through his actions, not by personally dictating a "holy" book. Those "missionaries and whatnot" carried word of those actions throughout the world. The "holyness" of the Bible, IMO, rests on the accuracy with which it has recorded what God did.

Your point about Constantine is pathetically simple and naive. Christianty grew from nothing to being widespread well before Constantine became emperor. In fact, most secular historians I have read on the subject believe that Constantine converted BECAUSE Christians had grown so numerous and influential. Please see my post on this above.

How do I decide what is true is a complex question. Simply put, I study. There are various criteria New Testament scholars use, some of which I agree with and some of which I believe are given too much influence. My presonal search has developed by establishing the sayings and deeds of Jesus, including the criterion of rejection and execution, which are most certain, and using the criterion of coherence to evaluate the other sayings and deeds of Jesus. One point on which I agree with N.T. Wright on is the importance of evaluating this evidence in the light of first century Judaism and early Christianity, rather than using the criterion of embarassment as an exclusive, rather than inclusive tool.

Needless to say that I disagree your evaluation of the New Testament. And you are extraordinarly wrong about the resurrection, it is one of the earliest attested to and supported traditions in Christianity.

About who first implied the apostles were illiterate.

Dragonfli THEN:

"Jesus did not for the most part choose the educated as apostles. He chose the illiterate and the social outcasts."

Dragonfli NOW:

""It was you who stated that "all the apostles were illiterate." I was very carefull to keep my phrasing open."

And yes, I believe that the spread of Christianity in its first 150 years was quite remarkable.

"and" does not imply both! One can be illiterate and a social outcast, one can be just illiterate, and one can be just an outcast. I refered to the different groups he chose. I did not state that "All the deciples were illiterate".

What part of "For the Most Part" do you not understand?