Toto

I'm not sure exactly what you want links on from my previous post.

But if you go back to post #2 in this thread, I have a link to a thread on Rodney Stark's Rise of Christianity. Stark demonstrates, using the best available evidence at hand, that Christianity grew at a rate that would be expected for a new religion. There is nothing extraordinary about its growth at all. It spread by personal contact, and by giving its members some small advantage in surviving and reproducing in the Roman Empire. There is no need for any unseen influence.

Huon

The maps are very imprecise. They show the regions where Christians existed at a time, and even this time is not precise. Christianity in 200 CE is not the same thing as Christianity in 400 CE. Between them, there are the persecutions of Decius (249-251), Valerian (257-261), and Diocletian (284-305), and the victory of Constantine. After 325 (Nicaea) the situation of the Christians change.

The first map could make believe that the situation of Christendom in 400 was already the same in 200, which is obviously impossible. And the second map (400-600 CE) is not better.

For instance, it does not mention that the Arians were in some regions numerically and politically more important than the Catholics. The maps do not show that the country people (peasants) were in fact pagans, with their polytheistic beliefs. The origin of the word "peasant" is "paganus" !

For a region which I know well, South-West France, it was dominated by the Wisigoths until 507, and these Wisigoths were Arians. King Theodoric (493-526) was an Arian, and he was also tolerant. In Spain, same situation. King Reccared abandoned Arianism and converted to Catholicism in 587.

The Basques remained pagans until approximately 1,000 CE. However, the second map shows erroneously that they are Christians in 600.

In Brittany, there is a Christian organisation around 450. In 453, a council held in Angers mentions the existence of 8 bishops in Brittany, but we know only their names and not who was the titular of what see.

Huon

Alfred Loisy (1857-1940) was a French Roman Catholic priest, and his most famous observation was that ‘Jesus foretold the kingdom, and it was the church which came’. He was excommunicated. The "highest expansion rate" is well adapted to an industrial and commercial organisation.

Secondly, Islam was still faster in its expansion. Between 622 (Hijra) and 711, less than a century, the Muslims conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and entered in Spain. In 725, they plundered the town of Autun, central France, and in 732, they had another try at Poitiers, but were severely defeated.

Their difference with the Christians was that they had a military organisation, and were independent from the Roman Empire (Constantinople) and the Persian Empire. And Christianity had shown its social limits in Egypt and North Africa.
Another industrial record ! But you should look at Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) …
Of course, of course … A pity that the expansion rate of Christianity was so low in India, Sub-Saharian Africa, China, Japan, Australia, and the Americas, around the second century CE…

Huon

If there were 25,000 to 50,000 Christians in Rome around 250, (my post # 37) they were a small minority in the population of Rome, at that time, and Rome was an important center of Christianity.

angelo

There is no doubt that Christianity soared when Constantine, for his own selfish and power grabbing reasons embraced the myth of a man-god who was crucified and was resurrected and had a large following among the general population. The question I would ask is did he believe the myth, or did he use it for the good of the Roman Empire. I think not.

Chris Weimer

That depends on what you mean by "good". His strength perhaps kept the empire alive longer, though I think a reintroduction of the pagan life by Julian would have been just as effective and perhaps not as devastating. It's a very complicated story.

Cege

I fail to see the evidence to support 1., 2., or 3.

Even if 3. could be proven, wouldn't that allow for "unseen influences" to have intervened in the growth & spread of the other religions and their supportive literature?

If 1, 2, & 3 are sufficient to prove that a God exists, can't they also be used to prove that other Gods exist, albeit less successful and/or interested in growing larger numbers of followers and literature?

Minimalist

Or his own political reasons?