Howard

Good example. And in North America, the Christian colonists didn’t exactly negotiate with the natives once they had the power to appropriate the land by force.

Edited to add: Then there was that little matter of slavery, adamantly opposed by NO major Christian denomination other than the Quakers.

Kosh

If you're gonna buy into that quick rise argument, you'd better start reading the book of Mormon...

joedad

Christianity is more Pagan than Jewish, and Judaism is More Babylonian than Christian. In this historical neck of the woods I still see Judeo-Babylonianism existing alongside Pagan Crucifixionism.

hinduwoman

an auto run over my foot. No injury. If I had been a believer I would have labelled it a miracle.
If my foot had to be cut off I would have explained that God helped by not taking my life --- it is a miracle that only my foot was destroyed instead of my life.

DMB

True. Once it was established as a state religion it did absorb elements of local belief, even while decrying the local gods that were the basis of the belief. This may be one of the factors that helped it keep going in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ummm...am I the only one who remembers the crusades, to name just one example of "how" christianity allegedly rose "supernaturally?"

Or that, the printing press wasn't even invented until well over a thousand years later? Or that Constantine's official stamp on christianity as the means to control the masses meant that it was militarily enforceable throughout the known Western empire?

Or that it took hundreds of millions of missionaries thoughout history to "spread" the disease? Or that the disease itself is carefully designed to play upon the worst fears of ignorant, innocent people? People that were "converted" often under penalty of death?

Yeah...that's "supernatural" all right.

And, by the way, early christians being "persecuted" is yet another myth of christian lore. Just do a little research around these boards and you'll find that most "christian" persecution was from other christians and that almost no christian was ever persecuted for their beliefs in a resurrected messiah. Some were persecuted primarily under only two Roman leaders (their names escape me, but I've quoted the sources elsewhere as have many others on these boards) and that was primarily due to the fact that they were persecuting everyone that they deemed to not be Roman enough.

There is nothing "supernatural" about the alleged "rise of christianity." It has been largely forced on people through brutal actions throughout its ignoble history.

I strongly suggest you all do a little research around these parts before continueing with christian-borne apologetics.

Gregg

Christianity is probably not as interesting or unique a phenomenon as history (as penned by the Christian West) tends to make it, or as Christians would like to think.

Christians enjoy saying that Jesus was a seemingly failed messiah who died an ignominous death, and thus it appears to make no sense that a religion founded on him took off. They also like to say that Jesus' message was "new," "different," "unusual," "unsettling to the authorites" and things like that.

But the fact is, the mythical theme of sacrifice and redemption, of a dying and rising savior who lifts up his followers through his death and rebirth, has roots that probably predate civilization. The natural cycle of the seasons, the world "dying" in Fall and Winter and being reborn in Spring and Summer, would have provided the raw material for the development of such beliefs.

Later on, it was believed that kings had a mystical connection to the gods and that the welfare of the kingdom and the land was dependent on the king. Thus many kings underwent ritual humiliation and sacrifice in order to redeem the sins of the people and restore their favor in the eyes of the gods, in an attempt to ensure fair weather, a good harvest, success in battle, and the like.

As to Christianity itself, personally I subscribe to the view put forth by Earl Doherty that the faith began with Greek-educated Jewish scholars and philosophers grafting the Greek concept of the Logos, an intermediary between the one, pure, holy God and the mundane, impure physical world, including humankind, onto Judaism. The scholars found evidence for the existence of the Logos in the Jewish scriptures, notably mentions of Wisdom and Spirit. Initially the Logos was probably seen as a Revealer, but then other themes got attached to it--the Son of Man, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, messiah, etc.--and certain Jews came to believe in the Logos as the Annointed Savior (Jesus Christ) who had undergone a redemptive sacrifice and resurrection in a heavenly setting.

Christianity started out with a very slight advantage over numerous similar cults, due to its connection with Judaism, which was quite popular in the Empire. However, it had hard competition from other dying/rising savior-god cults (Mithras, Attis, Adonis, etc.). Then a Christian named Mark decided to write his own "Christian myth" after the manner of Greek myths, placing his divine savior in a semi-historical, earthly setting. Mark, and other Christian writers who copied him, also put in the savior's mouth the accumulated ethical teachings and wisdom sayings of their communities (the supposedly "new" and "radical" teachings of Jesus).

With the conclusion of the Jewish wars and the depopulation of Palestine, Christianity was cut off from its Hellenistic/Jewish roots. As the Gospels spread among a Gentile population that was unaware of their allegorical nature, they began to be seen as histories. And with that, Christianity gained a decided advantage over the other mystery cults. Its dying/rising savior had actually been to Earth, had walked and talked and taken meals with ordinary people, had died a real, bloody death. Christianity began gaining adherents in droves and the other cults were gradually marginalized.

Constantine's "conversion" was most likely a shrewd, pre-planned move to ensure the loyalty of his troops, who were overwhelmingly Christian, and to solidify his authority over an empire where Christianity was rapidly becoming the dominant faith. I'm not sure why we should regard the story of his seeing a flaming cross in the sky as anything but an invention. Anyone can say they had a vision.

As to Christianity's survival beyond the fall of Rome, I'm not sure it's that surprisiing. Given its roots in ancient, almost primordial themes of death and rebirth, sacrifice and redemption, it hardly had an "unattainable" message. In fact, it probably had a natural appeal to the Western European tribes, and was easily incorporated into their spring/fertility rites. Of course, the other side of the Christian coin--the ethical teachings--took a while longer to catch on.

Gregg

Milton

Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism, so Judaism's existence is also support of Christianity's claim.

Rational BAC

Gregg---

Your version is plausible anyway, but talk about going around the barn to explain the obvious.

Isn't Occam's razor applicable here?

The most simple explanation is that Jesus lived, made enough of an impression on some people that an oral tradition developed, fairly accurate in nature, and that oral tradition was also fairly shortly written down.

And for 3 centuries anyway Christianity developed on its own, grass roots, word of mouth stuff. After Constantine, legitimacy and politics entered the fray, and Christianity was forever changed. Even after that, Christianity could easily have tanked many times. Can come up with all kinds of explanations to explain why it didn't. I call it just dumb luck.

As you have done, and legitimately so, alternate explanations for the phenomenon of the growth of Christianity are at least plausible.---------although a trifle long winded and stretched to fit a preconceived notion. Nothing wrong with basing a history on a preconceived notion and making things fit. Christians do that all the time. But we do it in a much simpler fashion. Simpler is better isn't it? It is just this hang up of not accepting anything supernatural that makes atheists work so hard to ignore the obvious.

It is OK with me for you to come up with convoluted explanations for very simple things and be accepted for that. Why aren't Christians accepted in the same way for believing that the most obvious, albeit somewhat supernatural, explanation is probably the most legitimate?

Aravnah Ornan

How is that statement relevant?