spamandham

The fact that Christianity was so successful, is easily explained by noting that it was the official religion of the Roman empire. Swords can be very effective conversion tools.

As to pre-Constantine Christianity, as Toto suggested, there is nothing out of the ordinary that needs explaining. Certain tenets of Christianity, it's exclusivity, it's evangelistic nature, do lead to it's spread, but these are not unique to Christianity.

aa5874

The spread of Christianity has very little to do with the Jesus story itself but much to do with POLITICS.

As soon as one becomes FAMILIAR with history of Antiquity and looks at a map of the world it can clearly be seen that the major religions FOLLOW POLITICAL POWERS.

It was POLITICIANS or Governments who in the past DECIDED on or CONTROLLED RELIGIONS.

Chili

It spread so fast because 'they' set people on fire for the Lord with no end in sight until they died and that accellerated so called Christianity like a wild fire with nothing good to show for in the end except 'more fire for the Lord.'

We are talking about the Universal Presence of Christ in Christendom (as in 'the mind of Christ') which created the high culture of our civilization after the dark ages 'incubated' it's 1000 year richess to give birth during the 13-1500's. That is, nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever will!

Chili

No, you must see the politicians as fire figthers or rat-catchers who knew what was good for the people in the distance (the 'extend' of the Utilitarian principle) for which so called Christianity was far to short-sighted. The fact is that wisdom must be 'uploaded' into the soul so it can accumulate and bare fruit for a thousand year hence (also according to Plato's "recollection theory"). And yes, political control was required to protect the flock from the wolves in sheeps-clothing while they were allowed 'to be' (simply because they were eternally lost) but were not allowed roam and scatter the flock.

Kapyong

Gday,

You're kidding?
Are you really arguing that Luke was an eye-witness just because you found a translation with the word "followed" in it ?

The actual passage usually reads like so :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,"

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."


Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses?
No.

Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses?
No.


All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to :
"Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us."

That's ALL he says about eye-witnesses.
In a nut-shell : "many have written ... based on eye-witnesses"

No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

THEN
Luke describes his OWN VERSION :
"after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you"

NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY.


In summary,
the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on Luke's writings.

Luke was not an eye-witness,
Luke met no eye-witnesses,
Luke identified no eye-witnesses,
Luke does not directly connect his writing with any eye-witnesses.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,


Certainly the most successful religion we know of is Scientology, at least in terms of speed of initial growth.


K.

Jaybees

Let's give Paul credit for that. He told his pagan audiences that they could believe in the true god, with none of the drawbacks--circumcision, dietary laws, and other OT restrictions--and with the added bonus of a god who had walked the walk with mankind. Since his listeners were already familiar with human beings conceived by gods, and others who'd come back from the dead, the framework was all there for him to spread the word successfully. Add to that eternal salvation. The new religion was then a sure winner.

The odd thing is that so appealing a cult took over 300 centuries to gather in much more than 5-10 percent of the population.

Chili

No, it should say in verse 3, "I too have carefully traced the whole sequence of events from the beginning, and have decided to set it in writing for you, Theopholus, so that Your Excellency may see how reliable the instruction was that you received."

Verses 1: "Many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events which have been fulfilled in our midst, 2 precisely as those events were transmitted to us by the original eye witnesses and ministers of the word."

The above clearly shows that Theopholus had received 'hearsay' at best that may have been warped by the ministers of the word.

Then he presents vs 3 and 4 that clearly show that he decided to now write down what he, Luke, had received first hand [from God], and then he starts with the announcement of the birth of John and after thatthe announcement of the birth of Jesus; none of which was ever told before and so there is no certainty to be found in what Theopholus had heard before but in fact a major contradiction was laid before him now . . . with more to follow.

Chili

I would say that there was nothing wrong with the Jews and their religion and that they rightfully denied this 'universal' king and had every duty to crucify this Jesus who went to the pagans to start a new religion to be grafted as a new branch on the old Abrahamic myth so that they could exist as two bone fide religions sharing the same Genesis with the Jews keeping the OLD and Catholics using the NEW testament to substantiate their claim to fame.

The difference between these two is that the Jews chose to remain mesmerized by the prophets while the Catholics adopted the example set by Jesus as their high road to heaven [in a hurry] and have their past to show for it now.

bacht

It's an interesting question. I don't know if we have reliable numbers for pre-Constantinian church membership. The martyrs would have been the most public "advertising" for the new religion, maybe followed by the desert hermits.

Then there's the phenomenon of Jewish outreach and conversion before Christianity. I assume there was some connection in the minds of 2nd C pagans between the Jewish tradition and the religion of the apologists. This could have included stereotypes about Jewish piety and wisdom.

On the one hand Catholics were trying to absorb gnostic followers, and on the other they were trying to retain the Jewish tradition, all without upsetting the Roman authorities. The conspiracy angle would portray the Catholics as serving Rome's interest by neutralizing wacky gnostics and Hellenizing the troublesome Jews.

The apologetic argument would be that pagan religion and philosophy had come to dead ends, and only Christianity could rejuvenate the empire's masses. But as Toto points out it could be as simple as joining a new "club", filling a social void.