The Dagda

That's not an exponential growth rate it's a logistical one that leads to the population reaching an optimal level at a certain amount, in your case 90% that then leads to a logarithmic value that ends at 0%. Exponential would mean that all of the population at some point would be 100% believers, since that is not the case, the exponential model is worthless, that said it only been useful in determining either the ultimate level of belief or the eventual level of disbelief.

Transient

on to insults now?
Why is it that christians always seem to resort to insults?
I have no idea what you are getting at - I just posted what I thought in regard to what you had said.
Have a nice day.

Roger Pearse

Erm, what insults? You posted some standard polemic -- which you certainly didn't think up -- about Caesar and Jesus in response to a post on a different subject! That tells me that you didn't read my post, and that you didn't think for yourself about what you wrote. 'Nuff said, really.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

show_no_mercy

My question is which "Christianity" is the OP measuring? The Christianity in Rome was relatively safe compared the the Christianity (possible Jewish-Christians) in Jerusalem. Is the initial figure supposed to be all Christianities together? I would say that there was a decrease in the Jewish-Christian population from 66 - 135 CE since in that time period the descendants of todays Rabbinical Judaism were assimilating or slaughtering the other sects of Jews like the Sadducces. I don't think that the Jerusalem Jewish-Christians would have survived during this time. They would have either gotten killed off by other Jews/Romans or scattered after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt (and possibly marginalized and/or killed by the other Jews in the diaspora that followed).

Paul's Gentile Christianity in Rome might have survived all of this unscathed.

aa5874

There is no information available to assume Jesus believers, or "Christians" were safe in Rome before the 4th century.

The church writers wrote about persecution and death among Jesus believers. These believers, it would appear based on Justin Martyr, did not publicly make it known that they believe or worship Jesus, they were operating underground.

Again, based on Justin Martyr, it was not even known what was done during the meetings of Jesus believers. Up to the middle of the 2nd century, Justin was still trying to convince people that Jesus believers, when meeting in secret, were not engage in cannabilism. This startling revelation would indicate that the meetings of Jesus believers were not open to the public but was done in secret.

Any numbers given for Jesus believers of antiquity would be just a complete wild guess, and use of the word "Christian" complicates the matter to futility, since the word "Christ" predated Jesus by hundreds of years.

There is also the anomaly where persons or a group of person can be called certain names by others when the group or persons do not refer to themselves by those names.

For example, persons living in the Western world may be generally called Christians, when in fact there are Muslims, Hindus and every sort of non-Christian beliefs also in the Western World.

The word "Christian" in antiquity is ambiguous, it does not have to mean "Jesus believers".

spamandham

Graphing pure assumption is not the same thing as science. The numbers are concocted from nothing as far as I can tell.

Huon

The numbers of Stark for the third and fourth centuries are :
200 217,795
250 1,171,356
300 6,299,832
350 33,882,008

If they were true, these numbers would show (miraculous ?!) mass conversions...

Toto

This is not a miraculous rate of growth. Stark attributes it to normal factors - a pro-natalist policy among Christians, and existing Christians converting some of friends and neighbors.

After all, fifty years is about 2 1/2 generations, in which Christians were having children, and also taking in abandoned babies and raising them to have more children.

Transient

No it is not nuff at all.
Firstly I find what you wrote a bit confusing - I interpreted it the best I could.
Secondly I did think for myself mate - what I wrote is what I think.
All of us are affected by what we read and our ideas are affected by our communcations with other humans - you are some sort of island? You do not change or alter your ideas at all with information you get from communication with other humans?
I do not take an insult lightly.
Do not insult if you do not expect a defense.
I do not, unlike many others, insult unless insulted.
So firstly you accuse me of not thinking for myself and now you accuse me of not reading your post.
Both are incorrect.
At worst you could accuse me of not understanding your post, an accusation which a freely accept as true.

Johnny Skeptic

Better stated, when in doubt regarding all writings of antiquity, adopt an agnostic position pending the possible availability of more conclusive evidence.

May I ask why you demand to know so much about history? If Julius Caesar did not actually cross the Rubicon River, how would that affect your daily life? If William Shakespeare did not actually write anything that is attributed to him, how would that affect your daily life?