mountainman

Obviously times and ages change.
In which century are you interested?
The first, the second, the third, the fourth?
Later periods perhaps?

My research has been on the fourth.

The one where Constantine essentially made Christianity
the state religion --- as argued by TD Barnes, on the
basic of Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
(with effect from 324 CE).

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

joedad

If the spread of a religion is proof of it’s veracity than any religion that Christianity replaced is just as valid. Don’t all religions displace earlier versions?

And if christianity was an apocalyptic movement in which the wronged in this life would gain acceptance and glory in the next life, then it was the perfect religion for everyman, not just slaves. With Christianity you couldn’t lose.

I also think that it’s being monotheistic gave it an advantage.

jules?

one of the most interesting things about xtinity is the changes, this particular thread is really to do with my interest in the climate across the empire that caused people to flock to the faith. So the 2nd-3rd would be the main focus.

By its nature the neo-apocalyptic faith had a limited shelf life and I think the 'quick, quick, get saved the end is nigh, dont think about the detail [i.e that it is nonsense]' was a real winner. I am sure for some that missionaries pointing out this plague or that rumour or that calf with two heads were signs was all very convincing.

Sometime in the 3rd century xstianity must have sudstancially changed simply because the end had not arrived but it was evidently rich. You are likely aware that when pope Liberius died in 366 riots broke out between supporters of rival successors the successful candidate Damasus, known by his critics as "the ladies' ear-tickler" achieved his position by hiring thugs to massacre the supporters of his rival Ursinus. Sound all very Roman.
jules

jules?

Sorry my mistake, just anti Darwin, which goes to show that you [I!] should not jump to conclusions. anyway even mentioning it is a ad hom argument and a bit foolish:redface:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/050210darwin.html

jules?

the faith certainly had advantages in its early years, community welfare, feasts for worship, and equality as well as salvation, and according to Celsus you could be wicked and still get in if you repeted. But there is the valid point that a belief doesnt have to be particularly good or complex or even believable to gain followers. The Diana inquiry is proof that all the sensible boxes can be ticked yet still have a following of conspiracy theorists, i doubt this enquiry would happened 10 yrs on if that were not the case. And a thousand years from now she will be god incarnate! But the good thing now is we can track beliefs and their spread as it all happens quickly. Kinda belief fruit flies.

Huon

IMHO, this argument does not take into account the fact that ~90 % of the population was composed of country people who were not concerned by these "statistics", if I can say so. We hear of early Christians minorities in the most important towns of the Empire, Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, the towns of Asia Minor and Greece. But when I look for the first (alleged) bishop in the towns of what is now France, I find the names of people who existed probably after 250 or 300 CE, and attended some council.

The first Bishop of Bordeaux known to history, Orientalis, is mentioned at the Council of Arles, in 314.

The first bishop of Agen known to history is St. Phoebadius, friend of St. Hilary, who published (in 357) a treatise against the Arians and figured prominently at the Council of Rimini in 359.

The first Bishop of Angers known in history is Defensor, who, when present in 372, at the election of the Bishop of Tours, made a determined stand against the nomination of St. Martin.

The first bishop of Angoulême was Ausonius, a disciple, it is said, of St. Martial. St. Gregory of Tours, held that St. Martial preached the gospel in Limoges about the year 250.

The first historically known bishop of Aix en Provence is Lazarus, who occupied this see about the beginning of the fifth century.

The first bishop of Ajaccio known to history was Evander, who assisted at the Council of Rome in 313.

The historical period of the African Church begins in 180 with groups of martyrs. At a somewhat later date the writings of Tertullian tell us how rapidly African Christianity had grown. A council held at Carthage about the year 220 was attended by eighteen bishops from the province of Numidia.

Amaleq13

No mistake. He is clearly a sociologist and a raving creationist.

jules?

I acknowledge that sustained growth took its time and like you say very slow in the areas that lacked big cities like Gaul, although Irenaeus was in Gaul in 170, although he appears to have come from the east. Celtic countries appear to have a more homoginised faith with Druids holding a huge influense despite being the only religion to be actually banned in the empire. When xstianity got a foot hold it seems the druids simply changed their titles becoming the celtic church. The celts feared nothing except the sky would fall on their heads but the Classical world was familiar end-times at least according to celsus so were perhaps more accepting hence the growth in Classical colonies of Africa and coastal towns of the western med.

"They [Christians] postulate, for example, that their messiah will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of believing Christians, will be consumed in fire. An interesting idea and hardly an original one. The idea came from Greeks and others namely, that after cycles of years and because of fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the time of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession...This is responsible for the silly opinion of some Christians that god will come down and rain fire upon the earth."
Celsus

Toto

Rodney Stark is a sociologist of religion who almost single-handedly converted the subspecialty from one that viewed religions as primitive and irrational to one that viewed religious choices as rational economic decisions.

He is noted for his study of "new religious movements" and his defense of those movements against the charges of being "cults". Also for his defense of the practice of scholars taking money from those cults new religious movements.

He maintained that he was an agnostic for most of his career, including the time in his career when he wrote the Rise of Christianity, but recently, with suspicious timing, he announced that he was a Christian, and accepted a prestigious appointment to Baylor University.

The link above does not identify him as a creationist, raving, or otherwise, but it does indicate that he is supporting the economic right wing in the US, which somehow has to accomodate the religious right in order to stay in policital power - so he is willing to fudge the issue enough to create room for creationists to find space in the Big Tent of conservative politics.

jules?

Hi Toto, the Stark lead has been useful, especially in bringing my attention to plague which is something I am amazed i missed. To distrust him for his right wing and cristian views would be unfair although it does raise issues that need to be looked out for. I still await my library to get me the book which will take weeks so I can't really be too judgemental however the idea that christian women lived in some fluffy environment that allowed them to breed when they were ready and to imagine their caring environment protected them from the plague are areas I will try and find great clarification.

Agnostics who suddenly claim that they have seen the light always make me skeptical.