Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tigers! · 05-13-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

.... Spreading only by word of mouth seems to me like a serious limiter of growth, ...

It's fairly effective. It's similar to the way "new religions" have grown in more recent historical times.

It's not just religions. Look at the growth of communists from Das Kapital to early 20th Century Russia. It could only take a few decades to go from a handful to > 100k.

aa5874 · 05-13-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

.... Spreading only by word of mouth seems to me like a serious limiter of growth, ...

It's fairly effective. It's similar to the way "new religions" have grown in more recent historical times.

It's not just religions. Look at the growth of communists from Das Kapital to early 20th Century Russia. It could only take a few decades to go from a handful to > 100k.

Regardless of the growth of Communists it cannot be assumed ALL NEW religions have the very same growth rate. Surely a religion may have a high growth rate and then have a sudden drop and vice versa and some may have extremely low growth for a very long time.

It is just not reasonable at all to assume growth rates for the Jesus cult when based on sources of antiquity the Jesus cult was operating in SECRET.

Against Celsus 1.1

Quote:

The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that “of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws.”..

Toto · 05-13-2012, 08:31 PM

The point of Rodney Stark's analysis was to show that the reported growth of Christianity was consistent with the normal growth of a new religion through social contacts and other social factors, and that there was no reason to assume some miraculous divine intervention that gave Christianity an explosive growth curve.

aa5874 · 05-13-2012, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The point of Rodney Stark's analysis was to show that the reported growth of Christianity was consistent with the normal growth of a new religion through social contacts and other social factors, and that there was no reason to assume some miraculous divine intervention that gave Christianity an explosive growth curve.

It is absurd to use IMAGINARY data for any analysis. This is basic. There is NO evidence that the Jesus cult had explosive growth when the sources that show explosive growth are NOT credible.

People who use the NT and Apologetic sources for history will put Garbage in-and get -Garbage out.

outhouse · 05-13-2012, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Besides, AA, even Christian demographics only believe there were a few tens of thousands of Christians in the mid second century. So even according to that, it stretches credulity that a Justin speaking for a very tiny insignificant sect would write the emperor with the expectation that his letter would be read when he doesn't even use the opportunity to say ANYTHING about his sect, its leaders, location etc.
It really makes no sense that it was writen by a Justin in mid 2nd century.

I wanted to address the question of demographics, based on Duvduv's comment in a separate thread. Somewhere I'd read that people had estimated only 10,000 or so Christians circa 100 CE, so I was shocked to read the following:

"Estimates of the number of Christians, let us say in 100 CE and again 200 CE, are extremely difficult to calculate ... for the year 100 CE, something in the order of 100,000 to 250,000...is about as close as we are likely to get, though, if anything, this may be on the high side...for the later date, 200 CE, we are offered anything from around 1 to 1.5 million, or 1.4 to 2.5 percent of the total population, usually reckoned to be around sixty million."

--Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Fortress)

Wilson's point was to show what a tiny minority Christians were in the world at large, but I find it shocking that an illegal, underground cultus that supposedly started in the 30s and 40s would have as many as 100,000 to 250,000 adherents by the early second century. Your thoughts?

since were talking about 100CE on, its safe to say we could state we are looking at the population of Pauline christianity.

I think he's right 100,000 is way to high, at 100 CE im thinking the numbers could be very low. and as stated difficult to determine

by 200 CE though, pauline christianity was widespread and still on fire so to speak.

gnostics were a minor cult and not enough to really count since they would be but a fraction of the total population, and the original jewish christian sect from the real apostles, had long since been gone.

aa5874 · 05-13-2012, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

since were talking about 100CE on, its safe to say we could state we are looking at the population of Pauline christianity.

I think he's right 100,000 is way to high, at 100 CE im thinking the numbers could be very low. and as stated difficult to determine

by 200 CE though, pauline christianity was widespread and still on fire so to speak.

gnostics were a minor cult and not enough to really count since they would be but a fraction of the total population, and the original jewish christian sect from the real apostles, had long since been gone.

We see the same approach from you--History WITHOUT evidence--History without Data.

You are merely inventing Fables when you use sources of fiction and implausibilities. The DATED evidence show that there was NO Jesus cult in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

Duvduv · 05-14-2012, 03:08 PM

And of course even claims of Christian sects in the second century lack evidence even in the Apology of Justin who says virtually nothing about his sect or the sect of Marcion in his own backyard. So much for the SECOND CENTURY.

mountainman · 05-14-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

As noted, the figure of 100,000 is probably on the high side. But I suspect that these were not individual converts. The figure would have included households, which would have included wives, chidren, slaves, and household hangers on.

Have you read Rodney Stark's Rise of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)? [extensive preview on google books] Stark spends some time on the statistics and what they mean, although he rather uncritically accepts some of the claims in Acts about the numbers. But his point is that religions like Christianity spread by social contact, so they grow exponentially.

It is most remarkable that some one would use Acts of the Apostles for the start of the Jesus cult when it is OBVIOUS fiction.

It's precisely the modus operandi that an investigator would apply to the determination of the demographics of hobbits during the life of Bilbo Baggins in the Shire of MiddleEarth.

The later one dates Acts (for example the end of the 2nd century) the more problematic the Stark reality becomes.

Quote:

The author of Acts claimed the preaching of the Jesus story BEGAN after Jesus Ascended in a cloud when the Holy Ghost gave the disciples Miraculous Power and they became Multi-lingual on the day of Pentecost and that about THREE THOUSAND people were converted .

There is no history in Acts. It is the genre of pseudo-historical polemic that characterizes the literature of many otherwise anonymous 4th century heresiologists.

Quote:

There is ZERO evidence in all antiquity from non-apologetic sources to support anything about Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the disciples, Paul and converts in Acts of the Apostles since before c 70 CE.

Philosopher Jay has above addressed the remarkable fact that we have absolutely no null nada zilch archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis for the existence of any christian demographics in the 1st and 2nd centuries. In fact, it may be true to state that we have more archaeological evidence for the existence of hobbits on planet Earth than we do for the existence of "early christians" on planet Earth before the forgery mill of the 4th century swung into top gear.

Quote:

The earliest DATED fragment of Acts is NOT from the 1st century, but the 3rd century, and that is EXPECTED if Acts of the Apostles was NOT known or that there were NO actual Apostles before c 70 CE.

Surely we MUST BELIEVE in the legends of our Christian Fathers? Surely we cannot simply relegate these legends to pseudo-historical polemic produced by the heresiological regime that flowered in bloodshed, persecution, intolerance, inquisitional execution, censorship, book-burning and other fascist actions of organised crime?

Or can we?

.

aa5874 · 05-15-2012, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And of course even claims of Christian sects in the second century lack evidence even in the Apology of Justin who says virtually nothing about his sect or the sect of Marcion in his own backyard. So much for the SECOND CENTURY.

You are COMPLETELY wrong. The DATED Texts of antiquity fundamentally CORROBORATE Justin Martyr's writings.

Again, we are NO longer accepting Imagination--now we are dealing with the DATED Texts.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Once you reject the DATED evidence then your contribution is just mere speculation or propaganda.

The DATED Texts do NOT support your claim that the Jesus story was initiated in the 4th century.

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 06:06 AM

And how do you know the Apology is from the second century? Because the biased church writers said so? Or did he come to you in a dream
Did you ever bother to notice that this so-called Justin never mentions a single leader, colleague or community of his Christians in his Apology even when saying "we"?

Do you notice that Irenaeus supposedly arrives a mere 30 or so years later and knows all about all the NT texts?

Did you notice that Justin is said to have lived in the time of the bogeyman Marcion yet doesn't mention anything about his writings or his so-called own version of memoirs?
And if Marcion knew about Paul and epistles, why didn't Justin at least mention that even once?
What kind of evidence is that for the second century?!
Isn't it likely that Justin is based on some sermon or an early Byzantine production before the emergence of a uniform hierarchy written by somebody trying to make the emerging, Christian belief seem older than it really was and before the NT texts emerged?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2012, 08:31 PM	#23
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The point of Rodney Stark's analysis was to show that the reported growth of Christianity was consistent with the normal growth of a new religion through social contacts and other social factors, and that there was no reason to assume some miraculous divine intervention that gave Christianity an explosive growth curve.

05-14-2012, 03:08 PM	#27
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And of course even claims of Christian sects in the second century lack evidence even in the Apology of Justin who says virtually nothing about his sect or the sect of Marcion in his own backyard. So much for the SECOND CENTURY.

05-15-2012, 06:06 AM	#30
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And how do you know the Apology is from the second century? Because the biased church writers said so? Or did he come to you in a dream Did you ever bother to notice that this so-called Justin never mentions a single leader, colleague or community of his Christians in his Apology even when saying "we"? Do you notice that Irenaeus supposedly arrives a mere 30 or so years later and knows all about all the NT texts? Did you notice that Justin is said to have lived in the time of the bogeyman Marcion yet doesn't mention anything about his writings or his so-called own version of memoirs? And if Marcion knew about Paul and epistles, why didn't Justin at least mention that even once? What kind of evidence is that for the second century?! Isn't it likely that Justin is based on some sermon or an early Byzantine production before the emergence of a uniform hierarchy written by somebody trying to make the emerging, Christian belief seem older than it really was and before the NT texts emerged?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.