SaintCog

I know this isn't something you hear a skeptic argue everyday, but bear with me here.

Imagine for a moment that there actually was an historical Jesus. I know that for a lot of you here that's a stretch. Just play along, ok? Given that there were many prophets and apocalypticists preaching in the intertestamental period, and that these charismatic preachers were saying all kinds of things and making all kinds of predictions, it's not unlikely that one of these would make a prediction that would eventually come true.

So, perhaps Jesus actually did predict the destruction of the temple. And then by some Darwinian social mechanism, the prophet whose prophetic utterances happened to adapt best to the eventual cataclysmic environment beat out all the rest. If this Jesus, who had posthumously gathered a modest following that was vaguely known by a modest number of people, was known to have predicted the temple's destruction, that would account for Christianity's wide appeal in the post-70 era.

Just some fun speculation.

jladam

I agree with this theory. Paul may have been a misogynist jerk, but you have to admit one thing, he knew how to get things done; unlike those twelve clueless apostles of Jesus.

Toto

Please read Rodney Stark and The Rise of Christianity. Stark shows that there was no explosive growth in early Christianity, that it grew only about as fast as most other new religions grow through personal contact. Stark thinks that Christianity grew because it was an effective mutual aid society.

funinspace

:thumbs: I chalk it up to the right charasmatic leader(s) (aka Paul), at the right time, and right place. I would toss in that the new cult was probably a better philosophical fit for the time as well than many of the old pagen gods.