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 9 by Jagella]

Gerd Lüdemann says:

"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

and

"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching."

Alwayson enjoys posting this; it may be the only thing he posts. It is doubtful he has ever read Ludemann apart from some internet quotes. At any rate, he has gotten him all wrong. It should be said that Gerd Ludemann believed in a historical Jesus who was crucified. He thinks that the disciples 'believed' they 'saw' Jesus. He thinks Paul believed he 'saw' Jesus. He explains it all on pathological grounds. The absence of Jesus' life in the letters of Paul merely show, for him, that Paul was not interested in the historical Jesus. Ludemann did not think Paul made up Jesus as a space deity.

Cf. Ludemann (2004) pg. 78, 88, 107.

[Jagella]

The absence of Jesus' life in the letters of Paul merely show, for him, that Paul was not interested in the historical Jesus.

Paul was not interested in the historical Jesus? Was Paul interested in an unhistorical Jesus?

Ludemann did not think Paul made up Jesus as a space deity.

Paul evidently had a different theology than many of his contemporary Christians. He clashed with them at times. The Gospel writers seemed to be promoting a down-to-earth Jesus in contrast to Paul's unearthly Jesus. The Gospels may have been written to make Jesus seem more real than the Jesus we read about in Paul's writings.

[Divine Insight]

1) There is no logical connection between calling other people wrong, and gaining support. If I went around saying that everyone who denies George chopped down a Cherry-tree was anti-patriotic, there is no logical guarantee I will gain a following. I suggest you have (yet again) taken a good question as an opportunity to let off steam.

If you were in a political power of authority with armies and religious clergy who would do your bidding you could indeed get people to follow your religion if only out of fear that if they fail to they will be outcast and potentially even killed.

But obviously if you were just a common citizen who was trying to create a small cult your following would be much smaller, although possibly even then you could gain some dedicated followers.

2) Please reference where this happens between 33 AD and Constantine? Obviously, Christianity would have to be successful prior to Constantine, in order for Constantine to embrace it; thus, Christians prior to Constantine were burning down temples on a regular basis.

Not really. Christianity would not have needed to be very successful prior to Constantine. It could have just been one of many different religious movements, and no doubt was. In fact, we can know for certain that it was, otherwise why would the post Constantine armies need to be burning down the temples of competing religions?

So prior to Constantine Christianity can't be said to have been any more successful than any pagan religion.

3) Both illogical and unhistorical. How does excommunicating people build a movement? If there are 10 people, and the leader banishes 9, then there is 1. Hardly growth. And yet Christianity grew quite rapidly. Therefore, logically, there must have been another reason for its growth. Also, It is unhistorical because, again, prior to Constantine, 'maiming and killing' was what Christians suffered, not inflicted.

Because banishment didn't merely banish the person from the religion but from being a respectable person in the society as a whole. After all, why was Constantine and other political leaders leading the society. Why not Joe Shmoe? Clearly there was a lot of social and political power involved here that you seem to be totally ignoring.

4) Refute from within? By this you mean that historically we have Christians prior to Constantine refuting that Christ had risen? I am not aware of any instances of this. 1 Cor. 15 comes closest, but the main point argued against was not Christ's resurrection, but the possible resurrection of Christians. And Paul did not issue an anathema. He argued.

When I say refute from within I simply mean that people who had been indoctrinated into the religion would start to question it, or being to exposes the self-contradictory nature of the claims made by the religion. People who spoke out against the Gospels were considered to be committing blaspheme. It was very much the way that speaking out against Islam, the Qur'an, or Muhammad is considered to be blaspheme today.

For someone who claims to always be making historical arguments you seem to be extremely ignorant of the history of Christianity. Christianity was not like it is today where people can just leave the church without any social consequences. Or even speak out against it pointing out the major self-contradictory nature of the scriptures.

Our freedom of religion and freedom of speech is a very recent event having only truly become free in the last few centuries. Even Isaac Newton couldn't speak out against the claims of Christianity that Jesus was the son of Yahweh. He knew that couldn't be true, but he also knew that to say so publicly could cost him his career and his social status. So it's far wiser to just not bring it up.

In fact, we see the same thing even today. While we may be free to renounce this religion and point out the self-contradictions and immoral absurdities associated with it, if you do that and try to run for a political office it's highly unlikely that you'll gain enough mainstream voters to get in.

So even today, to publicly renounce Christianity in a place like the USA can cost you dearly in term of social potential, especially in politics. So Christianity still has a social hold on society to this very day.

And there doesn't even need to be anyone in charge of keeping this conspiracy going. The religion itself is just coasting along on its own historical momentum. The people who have fallen for it become victims of the cult who then contribute to the continual perpetuation of the religion.

Same thing is true of Islam. It's no different at all really.

The only difference is that in countries where Christianity is mainstream secular freedoms and enlightenment also exists. So in the USA we can at least speak out against the religion without fear of being stoned to death. But this isn't necessarily true on some Islamic countries.

In fact, for this reason Islam is currently outgrowing Christianity. So the reasons I've given for Christianity can also be seen to be true is Islam.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]


liamconnor wrote:

1) There is no logical connection between calling other people wrong, and gaining support. If I went around saying that everyone who denies George chopped down a Cherry-tree was anti-patriotic, there is no logical guarantee I will gain a following. I suggest you have (yet again) taken a good question as an opportunity to let off steam.


If you were in a political power of authority with armies and religious clergy who would do your bidding you could indeed get people to follow your religion if only out of fear that if they fail to they will be outcast and potentially even killed.

But obviously if you were just a common citizen who was trying to create a small cult your following would be much smaller, although possibly even then you could gain some dedicated followers.

And yet Christianity grew to an impressive size before it had access to political power with armies etc.

liamconnor wrote:

2) Please reference where this happens between 33 AD and Constantine? Obviously, Christianity would have to be successful prior to Constantine, in order for Constantine to embrace it; thus, Christians prior to Constantine were burning down temples on a regular basis.


Not really. Christianity would not have needed to be very successful prior to Constantine. It could have just been one of many different religious movements, and no doubt was. In fact, we can know for certain that it was, otherwise why would the post Constantine armies need to be burning down the temples of competing religions?

Any more successful than any pagan religion makes it pretty successful: to grow from a minority of 600 to a voice to be reckoned with within 300 years is pretty remarkable. Perhaps by 'successful' you mean it 'squashed all competing voices'? That would mean that Islam is not a successful religion today.

liamconnor wrote:

3) Both illogical and unhistorical. How does excommunicating people build a movement? If there are 10 people, and the leader banishes 9, then there is 1. Hardly growth. And yet Christianity grew quite rapidly. Therefore, logically, there must have been another reason for its growth. Also, It is unhistorical because, again, prior to Constantine, 'maiming and killing' was what Christians suffered, not inflicted.

Because banishment didn't merely banish the person from the religion but from being a respectable person in the society as a whole.

What time period are you referring to? The Neronian period when Christianity was large enough (i.e. successful) to attract the scorn of the Roman culture? I promise you, if I were a business man who cared only about improving my situation, the last thing I would do is join the Christian movement during that era.

I am afraid it is you who is not being historical. You have jumped from Constantine to Isaac Newton! As if the two historical contexts are remotely the same.

How about select a less daunting time frame--perhaps the one where Christianity truly began taking off (i.e., where we first see a path whose trajectory got it to where it is now. i.e., 33 AD up to Constantine).

[liamconnor]

The absence of Jesus' life in the letters of Paul merely show, for him, that Paul was not interested in the historical Jesus.

Paul was not interested in the historical Jesus? Was Paul interested in an unhistorical Jesus?

I thought it was obvious I was relating Ludemann's theories.

Ludemann did not think Paul made up Jesus as a space deity.

Paul evidently had a different theology than many of his contemporary Christians. He clashed with them at times.

First, it is Alwayson's signature that Paul believed Jesus was not an historical figure, but lived and died in space and that all the gospels were blatantly allegorical, each element signifying an astral event. He quotes Ludemann out of context to support this.

The Gospel writers seemed to be promoting a down-to-earth Jesus in contrast to Paul's unearthly Jesus.

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

It is fascinating that skeptics require Paul in every letter to give biographical information on Jesus. 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?

The Gospels may have been written to make Jesus seem more real than the Jesus we read about in Paul's writings.

"may have been" = possible. Possible = the lowest criterion of any theory. When you have more than 'may have been' get back to me. For now, I am going to stick to the common sense position that Paul most certainly meant by "born of a woman" that Jesus was quite human, his feet quite firmly planted on earth; and that arguments from silence are pathetically weak until it is demonstrated that the silence is conspicuous.

In fact, the one place where a biographical detail of Christ's teaching would be extremely pertinent to a topic, it appears: a word from the Lord on divorce (1 Cor.), which appears in the gospels.

[McCulloch]

Historians call the earliest period of Christian history from about 33 to 100 the apostolic period. Jesus himself is said to have had multitudes of followers. According to Acts, after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the church experienced phenomenal growth. This makes sense. The generation that witnessed the resurrected Christ, the Pentecost miracle and the preaching of the apostles, who themselves performed healings. Early Christianity spread from city to city throughout the Hellenized Roman Empire and beyond into East Africa and South Asia. The Christian Apostles, said to have dispersed from Jerusalem, traveled extensively and established communities in major cities and regions throughout the Empire. Apostles and other Christian soldiers, merchants, and preachers founded early church communities in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Armenia, Caucasian Albania, Arabia, Greece, and other places. Over forty existed by the year 100, many in Asia Minor, such as the seven churches of Asia. By the end of the 1st century, Christianity had spread to Greece and Italy, even India.

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

In 610 CE, Muhammad began receiving what Muslims consider to be divine revelations. By 654 Islam controlled Arabia, Egypt, much of North Africa, Nubia (Sudan), some of the islands of Mediterranean Sea, Syria, Anatolia, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and parts of Pakistan.



Latter Day Saints trace the beginnings of Mormonism to Joseph Smith's First Vision, which he said he had in about 1820 in the woods near his home. By 1890 they had 188,263 members in 32 Stakes.

The Bahá'í Faith was established by Bahá'u'lláh in 1863. By 1928 there were 7 National Spiritual Assemblies, 102 Local Spiritual Assemblies in 36 countries, 573 localities.

Compared to these other movements, Christianity's early growth was rather lacklustre. In fact, Christianity did not really grow well until after 325.

[liamconnor]

[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.

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

[McCulloch]

[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.

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?
Now, I would agree with you that the rise of irrational religious fanaticism is a phenomenon that we don't adequately understand. But historically, the rise of Christianity does not seem remarkable.

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 or a Báha'í. 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.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by McCulloch]

So, inspired by your line of reasoning, the following explains the rise of Christianity: I think you'll find it compliments your reasoning:

The reason Christianity spread when it did was simply timing.
Christianity was "in vogue" co-incident when people were able to travel quickly.

The Roman terrestrial and sea power was at it's height when Christianity was growing. So it was the religion around at the right time to be spread.

Why was is so successful? Because once it spread, and people started taking it literally, Christianity collapsed the Roman Empire into the Dark Ages, ending trade routes and communications. Without open communications existing any longer, the murderous and oppressive spread of Christianity was the only thing left in the empire's remnants.

Make sense? Christianity spread because it was a mature religion that was intellectually available and growing when Roman communication was at it's height.

What do you think? Does that solve the riddle?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 15 by liamconnor]

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.

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.

"may have been" = possible. Possible = the lowest criterion of any theory. When you have more than 'may have been' get back to me. For now, I am going to stick to the common sense position that Paul most certainly meant by "born of a woman" that Jesus was quite human, his feet quite firmly planted on earth; and that arguments from silence are pathetically weak until it is demonstrated that the silence is conspicuous.

Well, is your explanation more probable than mine? Maybe you have the facts regarding Paul's knowledge of the life of Jesus, but I don't. Calling your guess "common sense" doesn't make it the right guess. The answer to this riddle is lost to history. All we can do is try to come up with the most likely explanation.