Christianity: How did it get here?

[Jagella]

Some Christian apologists argue that Christianity could not have gotten of the ground without help from a god. It is an enormous and long-lived religion. How might it be humanly possible for such a religious movement to have originated and lasted so long?

One obvious and very natural reason involves the historical situation in which Christianity originated. Israel was under Roman occupation in the early first century. Many of the Jews hated that occupation and were desperate to escape it. Since the older religion did not prevent the Romans from conquering Israel, some of the Jews concluded that a "new covenant" was in order. It was time for that tardy messiah to finally show up. They found that messiah and savior in the character, Jesus of Nazareth.

This Jesus, if he existed, was a religious genius. He had an amazing ability to inspire belief in many people. As for the doubters, he made a point of characterizing them as foolish or evil. He lured people with promises of heaven and frightened them with threats of eternal hell-fire. Since most of us fear death and what may lie beyond it, Jesus' teachings have a powerful psychological impact on us.

Although Jesus' promised apocalypse and Kingdom of God never materialized, his followers didn't give up on what he said. They claimed that Jesus didn't really mean what he apparently said. Christians became adept at mopping up after their religion's errors by interpreting the teachings of Jesus as meaning something that is true.

Today we call these Christians who mop up after their religion's errors, "apologists."

Christian missionaries go after everybody they can to convert them. They prey on the old because the elderly are often sick and need hope. They take advantage of the young because kids must endure their parent's religion and are impressionable. The more converts the better. There is strength in numbers. All those believers couldn't be wrong, now could they?

I could go on, but for now I will pause and ask if anybody else here can come up with reasons for the "success" of Christianity that do not require a god.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 20 by Jagella]

Quote:
An unearthy Jesus 'born of a woman, born under the law"?

I don't know if you've made a very strong case for a down-to-earth Jesus as taught by Paul. Note that the Greek gods and other mythical characters either had sex with human women or were fathered by gods and "born of women." Are they then earthly characters? Paul said little about Jesus' life on earth which is in marked contrast to the Gospels' relatively biographical nature.

I don't know what you are arguing for. If you are siding with Alwayson that Paul thought Jesus never walked on earth but lived and died in space, then the burden of proof rests on you. If you are merely pointing out that biographies have more biographical nature than epistles do, then fine. That is true almost by definition. If you are going to make a big point out of that, well, I await for the big difference.

Quote:
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the majority of Paul's teaching most certainly came orally, and that the letters were an expedient when face to face teaching was not possible. And thus the letters were contextually written (to deal with a specific problem) and going on about biographical details about Jesus may not have been pertinent to the context?

That's a plausible explanation. We don't know how much Paul's readers knew about the life of Jesus as outlined in the Gospels. If they already were familiar with those stories, then yes Paul may have felt that mentioning those stories wasn't necessary. We don't know.

I would say it goes beyond plausible that Paul's letters would not contain biographical information on Jesus. To prove otherwise, one would have to go through the letters sentence by sentence, and show why it is bizarre that Paul would not have included a specific biographical note from Jesus' life.

I think it beyond probable that Paul's readers had learned something of Jesus' life. I think it ludicrous to suppose that they were not interested at all in some of the life of this person who supposedly died and rose for them. George Washington has done none of these things for me; yet being an American, I am interested in his life nonetheless.

However, your cautious "we don't know" is commendable.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 18 by McCulloch]

liamconnor wrote:
[Replying to post 16 by McCulloch]

The OP asked for a reason accounting for the success of Christianity; not a comparison.

I myself cannot find an adequate explanation for the rise of Christianity: that is, adherence after the first Christians including Paul.

The point of the comparison was to show that the success of Christianity needs no explanation beyond what happens from time to time with the beginning of religious movements. Christianity's success was not out of line with the successes of Islam, Mormonism or Baha'i.

How unscientific. I suppose in older days you would have said, "The Sun shines bright, so do the stars, why do we need to account for the moon. They all shine. Great. Let's move on."


liamconnor wrote:
Historically speaking, it should not have happened, and as someone who tries to adhere to historical methodology, this is very troubling to me.

Really? I would have thought the opposite. As a believer in Christianity's special status, I would have thought that you would derive comfort and reassurance from the idea that Christianity's origins were inexplicable. Maybe you are projecting. Do you think that we unbelievers should be troubled?

'Comfort' has nothing whatsoever to do with "history"; and if the 'unbelievers' care about history, then yes, they too should find it puzzling. If all they care about is not believing in Christianity, then of course they won't be troubled.

liamconnor wrote:
In its early stages no one gained anything by becoming a Christian. We are not privy to the arguments made face to face with converts. I have no doubt that arguments were made, but we don't know what they were.

In its early stages no one gained anything by becoming a Muslim, a Mormon

I left out Bahai because I know little of it.

But as far as Muslims and Mormons, this is not true.

Muslims gained much by uniting their tribes together under one leader, who himself was under one God. There is much to be gained from unity. And they gained much from each successful war. It is no accident that in the Koran itself War, and not Miracles, was the criterion by which to judge Mohammed's status.

Mormonism grew in a time after Christianity dominated. But there were so many fragments of what was supposed to be a monotheistic religion, and so many reported visions endorsing its own movement, that uncertainty was pervasive (witness Smith's own spiritual journey). Smith was highly organized in his government. He did his best to centralize the new found community, which kept members from fraternizing with the enemy. Again, unity in a time of confusion and diversity.

In Christianity what do we have? Romans were already part of the most powerful entity they knew, and they decided to forsake it all to follow a leader who lifted no sword, and was in fact subject to the most humiliating death by the very state they were forsaking. Glorious death was and is commendable to Muslims who died in fighting; the same sentiment existed among Romans. Now Romans, during the rise of Christianity, are deeming a pathetic, non-resistant death as glorious.

All very strange to me.

Please note, I don't use any of this as an apologetic for the validity of Christian claims. I simply think it very weird.

[McCulloch]

How unscientific. I suppose in older days you would have said, "The Sun shines bright, so do the stars, why do we need to account for the moon. They all shine. Great. Let's move on."

Not at all. Just that the rise of Christianity was not peculiar. An honest historian wanting to understand the rise of Christianity would necessarily look at the rise of other religious movements. They might offer insight as to just how this kind of thing happens. A less honest one would look at wonder at Christianity's early growth, proclaim that it is inexplicable, greater by far than anything seen before or since.

'Comfort' has nothing whatsoever to do with "history"; and if the 'unbelievers' care about history, then yes, they too should find it puzzling. If all they care about is not believing in Christianity, then of course they won't be troubled.

But there is nothing untoward historically about the rise of Christianity. I do suppose that it is troubling to see just how quickly irrationality can take hold of a sizeable subset of society. Perhaps historians should turn to solving this enigma.

In Christianity what do we have? Romans were already part of the most powerful entity they knew, and they decided to forsake it all to follow a leader who lifted no sword, and was in fact subject to the most humiliating death by the very state they were forsaking. Glorious death was and is commendable to Muslims who died in fighting; the same sentiment existed among Romans. Now Romans, during the rise of Christianity, are deeming a pathetic, non-resistant death as glorious.

Are we talking about the apostolic period? Up to the year 100 or so, very few Romans joined Christianity. In fact, in the first 300 years, Christianity's growth was rather lacklustre compared to other religious movements.

All very strange to me.

Please note, I don't use any of this as an apologetic for the validity of Christian claims. I simply think it very weird.

Then I must apologize for taking you up wrongly. You might take a moment to understand how we might misunderstand your intent. In a Christian apologetic debate forum, a Christian proclaims that the early growth of Christianity is beyond normal understanding, inexplicable without divine intervention. But no, we should not take this as an apologetic argument. Just casual musings I suppose.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 21 by liamconnor]

I don't know what you are arguing for.

I'm arguing that the New Testament does not provide sufficient evidence for any sure conclusions regarding why there are such marked differences between what Paul had to say and what the Gospel writers said about Jesus. We can only offer educated guesses.

If you are siding with Alwayson that Paul thought Jesus never walked on earth but lived and died in space, then the burden of proof rests on you.

I can only say with assurance that Jesus is a character that the New Testament writers claimed was divine or nearly divine and who had magical powers. I suspect that he was made up or at least that many of the reports of his life were made up. I admittedly cannot prove that suspicion.

I would say it goes beyond plausible that Paul's letters would not contain biographical information on Jesus.

If you are right, then most other Christian clergy are very different from Paul because they almost always refer to something Jesus is said to have done when they speak of Jesus. If Paul was familiar with Jesus' life as outlined in the Gospels, then he may have made a mistake by omitting those stories. They seem effective in gaining converts.

I think it ludicrous to suppose that they were not interested at all in some of the life of this person who supposedly died and rose for them.

You are making an argument from credulity here: Since you find a claim hard to believe, then that claim is untrue.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 16 by McCulloch]

Let's compare the growth of other religious movements from a similar period of time from their founding.

Thanks a lot for that information. I agree that making comparisons between Christianity and other religions can be helpful in understanding how Christianity emerged and evolved. We may know more about the emergence of a different religion and apply that knowledge to Christian origins.

I believe another way to understand Christian origins is to study modern Christianity and compare it to early Christianity. Some modern Christians believe in miracles of healing, for example. Faith healers and preachers like Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart may be essentially the same as Jesus and Peter. Just like modern Christians may believe that Roberts and Swaggart can heal through the "power of the Holy Spirit,"the early Christians may have for the same reasons believed in the supposed healings of Jesus and Peter. In other words if Christians today are credulous enough to be fooled into believing that some people have miraculous powers, then the earliest Christians were probably fooled too.