Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-13-2012, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As a relatively MASSIVE number of people belonging to an OUTLAWED (illegal) movement growing exponentially under the nose of the regime in its own backyard?? Sounds very very fishy to me.

...

Read Stark's description of social conditions in cities in the Roman empire and get back to us.

(And remember that later Christians did tend to exaggerate the extent of persecution of earlier Christians.)

Toto · 05-13-2012, 02:11 PM

I spoke too soon - Christians do deface walls.

Christian graffiti

sotto voce · 05-13-2012, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

I find it surprising that 100,000 people did not leave a single artifact that is traceable to the First or Second centuries. Since we have tens of thousands of samples of graffiti from this time period, it is surprising that not one is from a Christian.

But then you don't find Christian graffiti now. Christians don't deface.

Ancient graffiti is not the spray painted territorially aggressive murals in modern cities.

Graffiti existed in cities long before there were aerosols.

sotto voce · 05-13-2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I spoke too soon - Christians do deface walls.

Whoever defaces cannot be Christian. Phoney Christians would soon be mocked into embarrassment if they tried it. Christians obviously had no walls of their own to deface, inside the Empire, anyway.

James The Least · 05-13-2012, 02:18 PM

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.

I'm confused. Spreading only by word of mouth seems to me like a serious limiter of growth, especially if the religion is banned and considered by the authorities to be dangerous and subversive. Josephus talks about some kingdoms that converted en masse to Judaism -- that is how a religion's numbers would quickly swell. Yet we have no evidence of anything like that happening in the first and second centuries for Christianity.

Such a high number simply does not jibe with a "gospel" that was written just a few years before. It does fit with my theory that there had been a growing desire for monotheism throughout the empire for a long time, and that the Greco-Roman world adopted a form of Judaism independent of the Jesus legend, which developed long after these conversions had taken place.

sotto voce · 05-13-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

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.

Would have? Either Wilson made this clear in his methodology, or he didn't.

Wilson's methodology was to extrapolate backwards from figures from the second century and beyond.

Then the inclusion of households is anachronistic and misleading.

Quote:

There was no census of Christians.

It's all guesswork, then. Though it's guesswork even with censuses!

Duvduv · 05-13-2012, 02:22 PM

How many bishops would one expect to be employed in the year 315 based on these kinds of demographics? Is that special number of 1,800 enough for several million people? I don't think so.

Toto · 05-13-2012, 04:24 PM

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.

Grog · 05-13-2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But then you don't find Christian graffiti now. Christians don't deface.

Not true. I often see 3:16 or John 3:16 spray painted. I've seen it defacing mountain sides in Wyoming. I've seen it in bathroom stalls. I've also seen Jesus is Lord. Here' an example from google:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1005/...291b5d99c0.jpg

sotto voce · 05-13-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But then you don't find Christian graffiti now. Christians don't deface.

Not true. I often see 3:16 or John 3:16 spray painted.

By the demon-possessed.

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

05-13-2012, 02:11 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I spoke too soon - Christians do deface walls. Christian graffiti

05-13-2012, 02:22 PM	#17
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	How many bishops would one expect to be employed in the year 315 based on these kinds of demographics? Is that special number of 1,800 enough for several million people? I don't think so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.