The Spread of Christianity

[Josh]

Mo wrote:

It doesn’t seem as if too many people believed him. And as far as I know, Christians in Rome were persecuted and thrown into the Colosseum where they were killed in horrifying ways for the amusement of the citizens of Rome. Why did the people do that to the Christians? Certainly not because they were convinced of the truth of Christianity! If that isn’t strong opposition to Biblical claims… If that doesn’t strongly indicate that for the contemporary witnesses Christianity wasn’t compelling at all…

First off, Christianity wasn't systematically persecuted by Romans until after all the contemporary witnesses were dead. (The Colosseum wasn't even around yet). The only exception to this was Nero's temporary persecution of the Christians, on whom he blamed the fire of Rome.

In the early years it was Jewish (and sometimes Roman) mobs who killed Christians and their motivation was "passion for their traditions" and in some cases, the threat that Christians posed to the economy.

But, Mo, it was precisely through persecution that the church grew.

What explains this spread? Several factors. I'll put forward three.

1) The conviction and bravery of Christians in the face of persecution
2) Christian morality- the stability of Christian families, their service to the poor and needy, plague victims, their example in taking in babies consigned to infanticide, all while Roman morality was in decline, etc..
3) The historical basis for Christian claims. Many notable pagans were brought to the faith through historical apologetics rooted in both the historical accounts in the New Testament as well as the evidence from predictive prophecy.

Based on these reasons and others:

Within 40 years Christianity had a presence in most of the major cities in the Mediterranean. The Christian population then steadily rose through the next couple centuries to the point that within three hundred years the population of Christians grew so numerous that it was a political expedient for even Emperors to align with them.

[moritz]

Aug 4, 2008 18:24:52 GMT -8 Josh said:

Mo wrote:

It doesn’t seem as if too many people believed him. And as far as I know, Christians in Rome were persecuted and thrown into the Colosseum where they were killed in horrifying ways for the amusement of the citizens of Rome. Why did the people do that to the Christians? Certainly not because they were convinced of the truth of Christianity! If that isn’t strong opposition to Biblical claims… If that doesn’t strongly indicate that for the contemporary witnesses Christianity wasn’t compelling at all…

First off, Christianity wasn't systematically persecuted by Romans until after all the contemporary witnesses were dead. (The Colosseum wasn't even around yet). The only exception to this was Nero's temporary persecution of the Christians, on whom he blamed the fire of Rome.

In the early years it was Jewish (and sometimes Roman) mobs who killed Christians and their motivation was "passion for their traditions" and in some cases, the threat that Christians posed to the economy.

But, Mo, it was precisely through persecution that the church grew.

What explains this spread? Several factors. I'll put forward three.

1) The conviction and bravery of Christians in the face of persecution
2) Christian morality- the stability of Christian families, their service to the poor and needy, plague victims, their example in taking in babies consigned to infanticide, all while Roman morality was in decline, etc..
3) The historical basis for Christian claims. Many notable pagans were brought to the faith through historical apologetics rooted in both the historical accounts in the New Testament as well as the evidence from predictive prophecy.

Based on these reasons and others:

Within 40 years Christianity had a presence in most of the major cities in the Mediterranean. The Christian population then steadily rose through the next couple centuries to the point that within three hundred years the population of Christians grew so numerous that it was a political expedient for even Emperors to align with them.

Non of this is evidence for the truth of the Christian claims. The factors that helped to expand Christianity can surely be logically explained. For instance, the secularization paradigm, which we discussed in another thread, claims that whenever a religion is under persecution, it helps to foster the religion (unless of course the religion is entirely wiped out). The reason for this is called cultural defense. Christians supported each other while under persecution and in the meantime made sure to reproduce their faith. Why the faith appealed to non-Christians is another question. But the fact that it appealed other people doesn't mean it's true either. Hinduism appealed to people too, and so did Islam, etc..
I don't want to brush their bravery under the carpet. But bravery doesn't give evidence for truth. The 9/11 highjackers were brave too (before you object, think about it).

Last but not least: whether the persecution was organized or not, that's not the point I was making. I was saying that Christianity faced strong opposition. From this we can derive, that the claims of the eyewitnesses obviously weren't too compelling.

[Josh]

Non of this is evidence for the truth of the Christian claims.

It wasn't intended to be. It was intended to argue against your implication that Christianity obviously wasn't compelling to Romans because they persecuted Christians in the Colosseum.

My point was that from the the 50 AD's Christianity grew in leaps and bounds in the Roman world. It appeals to the masses for the reasons I stated above, plus many other more subtle sociological factors and historical coincidences.

I was saying that Christianity faced strong opposition. From this we can derive, that the claims of the eyewitnesses obviously weren't too compelling.

Mo, think about this a bit more. Strong GOVERNMENTAL opposition means the truth claims of those who are oppressed must not be compelling???

When truth claims threaten something a government holds dear, do you think governments historically have given a flying rip about the truth?

Did Nazi oppression nullify the truth claims of Jews and Christians who spoke out against extermination camps as EYEWITNESSES? Did the United States' forceable removal of the Nez Perce mean that the evidence of their treaty with the United States (which was being broken) wasn't compelling?

No. You of all people should know that governments subvert the truth and won't listen to compelling evidence all the time.

It's the informed people in a society who have less to lose and less to gain by accepting a particular idea that give us a better gauge as to whether something is "compelling".

[moritz]

Aug 7, 2008 8:13:00 GMT -8 Josh said:

Non of this is evidence for the truth of the Christian claims.

It wasn't intended to be.

Check.

Aug 7, 2008 8:13:00 GMT -8 Josh said:

I was saying that Christianity faced strong opposition. From this we can derive, that the claims of the eyewitnesses obviously weren't too compelling.

Mo, think about this a bit more. Strong GOVERNMENTAL opposition means the truth claims of those who are oppressed must not be compelling???

You're twisting what I was saying. I was saying the Christian claims apparently weren't TOO compelling*. With emphasis on TOO. By no means I ever said that something ISN'T true because a government opposed.
As a matter of fact you pointed out that both the government AND the people opposed. The people even before the government. That people and government would become hostile once somone or something gets too rebellious is self evident. My whole point: Non of this is evidence FOR or AGAINST the truth of Christian claims. It's no evidence at all. Agreed?




*exagerated example: the fall of the twin towers was documented by way too compelling evidence for anyone to deny the towers never fell. Understand what i mean?