Juststeve

Chili:

Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth In Luke's Gospel although not in Matthew's. How much of your argument do you want to place on Matthew being correct about this?

Steve

Toto

The question of why cults spread has been studied scientifically. It relates to social issues and has little to do with the specific beliefs.

I'm not sure what you claim that I am wrong about. I simply pointed out that a cult that deifies its dead founder but does not gain adherents from the mainstream society is not exactly analogous to early Christianity.

And here I thought you might have gotten past insulting people who disagree with you on an issue of history.

If you study the history of astrology and the psychology of beliefs, you might understand why the idea was and is popular, in spite of being unsupported. The question of why people believe in conspiracy theories has been studied scientifically (by Michael Shermer among others.)

The idea that Jesus never existed is an evidence-based historical theory which has not yet gained majority acceptance, but has no relation to the psychological state of its adherents.

Toto

It appears that Judaism was evangelistic in competition with Christianity in the Roman Empire, until Christianity became established and made it illegal for Jews to try to convert Christians.

Elijah

It's the martyrdom of Jesus that his followers imitated that helped convince people that there was something real going on. “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church,” Tertullian. It was the greatest ad campaign of all-time.

Chili

We must accept Matthew as it is written to make known the difference between Matthew and Luke and confirm that the Jesus of Matthew was not the same Jesus as Luke's Jesus . . . and was in fact his brother James for a good reason.

So now we have Jesus and James exposed in their origin since one was from Nazareth and the other was just a passer-by Nazareth so it can be said that he was from Nazareth and that alone determines their destiny wherein Luke's Jesus goes to heaven and James goes back Galilee to burn some more 'for another 40 years,' I suspect, which then is how hell is made known on earth since 'burning with the desire to ascend' (go to heaven) until the second death do us part is equal to hell on earth.

Remember that in my analogy the differences between the Gospels compliment each other instead of contradict:

-It removes the historicity from the Gosples (I do not like that word).
-It makes Nazareth that 'little city of God' that is intuit among Jews by way of iconic imprinting and hence announces the birth of John and his lineage to be invited in the Cana event.
-It explains why the 'great commision' is wrong as juxtaposed with John 20-21 where we must bear the stigmata before we begin to preach instead of just having been to an evangelistic rally or have made a commitment at the age of reason, etc.
-It removes the great massacre from the born again experience and replaces that with the Cana event (or divine marriage of the 'woman taken from man' in Gen.2:22 that so caused the 'great divide' in man that created 'thirst' or desire in humans-to-be (tanha).
-It makes clear the distinction between born again by 'carnal desire' [in different ways] and 'by God' in John 1:13.
-It removes the [stupid] synoptic idea from the Gospels that urges us to find harmony instead of complimentary differences.
-It teaches us to be honest with ourself.
-It explains the missing manger in Matthew.
-It explains the adoration in Luke.
-It explains the conversion of shepherds into disciples . . . and so,
-explains why the passified ox and the mule are part of the Catholic creche.
-It explains why in Matthew no 'deep water fish' were caugth so they could put 'meat' in their sermons (insight)before they abandonned their boats as opposed to Luke (cf. Lk.5:1-11 as opposed to Matthew 5:18-22).
-Etc. etc. but above all: "My God my God, why have you forsaken me" in both Matthew and Mark but not in Luke and John.

Chili

Judaism and Catholicism are like twin mystery religions wherein Catholicism is a grafted branch on the trunk of Judaism and both are equally against Christianity as such.

semiopen

This might be mixing up causes and effects. Christianity is an easier sell; you get eternal salvation with little effort on one hand versus following commandments and rituals with no clear benefit on the other.

Judaism apparently stopped converting when they saw they were losing the race. When Christianity became established, it was already over.

The anti conversion laws are interesting but it's not like a lot of Christians were dying to convert.

Toto

Religions that have some sort of barrier to entry are generally more successful.

People do not convert because of the message. They convert to join a social group, and then justify their decision by learning to rationalize the theology. Having a few martyrs or a painful initiation ceremony can be a plus, based on the observations of sociologists.

sschlichter

(Luke 1:3) So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

(Luke 8:3) and Joanna the wife of Cuza (Herod's household manager), Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their own resources.

Juststeve

Toto:

I question the conclusion of your sociologists. Certainly the most successful religion we know of is Christianity, at least in terms of adherents. Far from having high barriers to entry, since the time of Constantine at least, it has been a positive boon to become Christian. It was a road to government office in Rome, post Constantine, and a way to keep your head in the presence of Charlemagne. It was for all intents and purposes mandatory throughout Europe until after the enlightenment. In the current day the stigma, in the United States at least attaches to not being Christian. Nevertheless Christianity flourishes.

I was at a church for Christmas Pageant last month where a friend’s daughter was performing. They had an alter call at the conclusion of the pageant. Talk about low barriers to entry, they would have taken me had I schlepped up to the front of the room.

Whatever high barriers to entry may have existed at one time, they don’t appear to be necessary to the continued growth of Christianity. I think we need to look for another explanation.

Steve