dog-on

No need to imagine, any schoolboy learns about the Roman Catholic Church and the power that this organization was able to wield, for quite some time, I might add.

figuer

I don't think such position has anything to do with disliking Constantine (:huh. It seems to be based on it being much more historically probable that there was a significant Christian population prior to the legalization of Christianity, combined with the desire to give historical weight to Christian claims.

avi

Zoroastrianism, in my opinion, predates all other monotheistic religions, and had a significant influence on Judaism, during the period of captivity in Baghdad. The earliest source I know of, documenting various aspects of Zoroastrianism, is from
Herodotus, i.e. this religion originates at least five hundred years, before the Christian era began.
I think this is a good question, and I doubt the figures supplied by Requia's source, which, following the link, points us to the "Atlas of the Early Christian World" by Mohrmann and VanderMeer, published in 1958. Umm. I don't know what their basis is, for claiming 1000 Christians in the year 40 CE. Do we have sources from the first century, reliable sources? Papyrus documents? non-forged documents? In my opinion, prior to addressing the important question of the growth of Christianity, and the basis of that growth, one must clarify the more fundamental question, how do we ascertain the validity of any data from 2000 years ago?

How about we try this: the silk route
In other words, imagine the impact of the arrival of this caravan bearing exotic merchandise, but also people, including learned scholars, scribes, translators, and physicians. Where were the termini of these caravans? Yup, dead center of ancient origins of Christianity: Syria and Turkey (Damascus and Antioch).
Analects (LunYu)
At least some authors believe this proverb predates KongZi. My point is that the richness of Chinese and Hindu Cultures would have ALSO brought some influence upon populations living proximate to the terminal distribution points of the great caravans, in addition to their merchandise per se.

Sheshbazzar

One might wonder what would be accepted as evidence?
I offered nothing that was new, revoltionary, or even ought to be considered controversial.

Laws, and references relating to the ger toshavim are present in, and integral with The TaNaKa, there is no evidence of these Laws and references being of any latter origination than the texts that they appear within.

Here are a few of the verses pertaining to the Ger Toshav.
These are verses from The Torah that deal with the "strangers of the gate" that lived and worked among the Jews. (I'll forego, unless it becomes nescessary, quoting all of the additional verses to be found in The Prophets and The Writings)
These "strangers" were NOT "Jews", nor "Jewish" in spite of the fact that by Law they did participate in, and observe certain "Jewish" customs. Yet there were things that they, by virtue of being "strangers", were specifically released from observing, and even barred from.
These "strangers" were the Gentiles living amongst the Jews as a seperate and distinct social class.
They could choose to become Jews themselves, or choose to remain as "Ger'eem" ("strangers"), each choice had its own particular advantages.
These verses ought to be evidence enough to support my statements that Gentiles did live among the Jews, and there learn, and participate in Jewish religious activities without being accounted as being "Jewish".

The second point being that when The Torah was finally translated into the Greek LXX (Septuagint) in the 3rd century BC the Hebrew term to "annoint" ("meshach""), was translated to Greek by the somewhat equivelent Greek word "chrisim", and "the Annointed" ("ha'Me'shee'ka") became "ho Christos" (The Christ) in Greek.
From that time forward both Greek speaking "Jews" and Greek speaking "Gentiles", (including those "strangers" that lived and worshipped together with the Jews) when speaking of the Messiah to come, would use the term "The Christ", although when conversing in a heavily Hebrew environment would likely continue to choose to use "ha' Me'shee'ka" (The Messiah).
This is the practice even in the present day when discussing Scripture with Jewish people, "Messiah" is commonly the term of choice, even by "Christians".

Do I need provide further evidence to support for any of this?
I could post all of the verses in The LXX Greek and highlight each usage of the various Greek forms of "christ" were it is used to translate the Hebrew term "meshach". Will I need to?

You saying that you would "actually like to see some evidence for any of this" Comes across as being needlessly skeptical, if not insulting.
I would think that this should be sufficient evidence and proofs for some of what I wrote. I can provide far more, and go into much further detail if nescessary.
But will stop here, in case you wish to dispute any of the above.

And as I said before, really there is nothing in what I wrote that ought to be considered controversial by anyone, or arouse any valid skepticism.

dog-on

Not meant to be insulting. Just wanted to see what you based your ideas on.

Thanks.


(Just to be clear, you are not actually arguing against a Roman origin for Christianity, in fact you are pointing out why it would actually have been quite easy for the Roman's to do so.)

gentleexit

I mean dislike Constantine as the embodiment of top down imposition or encouragement of their faith.

In other words, the 10% gets to, did Christianity grow largely organically, BOTTOM-UP, due to its unique nature (and this would be unique) or was its widespread adoption largely a matter of a KING supporting and enforcing, a TOP DOWN growth? There are only two positions. KING or NATURE. 10% is a keystone of the nature argument.

"King down" reflects precedent (think Clovus later or the conversion of Armenia or any new organized religion for that matter). It is the "historically probable" explanation (to use your words). I know of no case of such cultural transformation happening from the bottom-up, the growth of a mass religious movement grounded in alien history, heroes, examples. But you hold that massive organic growth in an alien environment is "much more historically probable". It is? So there once was something new under the sun, never to happen again!

No Robots

Isn't it a case of vertically integrated growth, with new adherents being won from all levels of society, including the highest?

Lógos Sokratikós

The Spanish actually settled in Latin America and they were already Roman Catholics. So the "pre-existing base of Christians" was imported, as was the case in the English colonies.

gentleexit

Let's say "organic growth" vs "kings-choice". Under any name, organic transformation is without precedent. This was enormous cultural change. The basis of city-life, the calendar, the stories you told your children. No more Alexander. Here's this King David. Metaphors change. Curses. Everything.

And I don't see how that happened, no matter how Mother Terera-ish the cult was or how bankrupt you believe the "Hindu's" were. There is no precedent. None.

Right now, "scholarly" apologists bend over backwards to avoid using "miracle" (the old old saw) and "king-down" (the uncomfortable probability) and construct elementary school growth charts grounded in little or nothing (there is some evidence from Egypt. That's it.)

As Avi said ...

No Robots

I quite agree. Here's Constantin Brunner:

Greece and Rome thought nothing of the thirty thousand gods, and the mysteries, and all the art treasures and all the poets and philosophers of Greece and Rome; Greece and Rome, and all humanity, regarded the whole of civilization as nothing, and the poor hanged Jew as everything, as their Lord, to whose service they gave everything they had not thrown away. And all this came through the Jewish am haaretz literature.

There is only one adequate explanation: genius. Christ is quite simply the greatest genius of all time, remaking god and man in his own image.