Archaeologica.org

By the fourth century they were pretty strong.

That's the myth - I'm not so sure that it is reality.

Granted the leaders always want the flock to support them, though. They still do that today.

I think Richard Carrier estimates says that scholarly estimates are something like 6,000,000 by 300CE for the whole Roman Empire, which consisted of about 60 million people. That, he says, would be a high estimate so if we say its half of that, 3,000,000 people that's still a hefty number.

Rome itself had something like 600,000 people living in it so we probably had something like 30,000 Christians in Rome which is enough to be dangerous

One of the ideas I am becoming more and more convinced of, is that Christianity succeeded because the Jews, who knew it was allegorical, rejected it. This forced the early Christians to take it outside of Judea and to the Gentile audience who did not know nor understand Judaism and their midrashic type stories. Somewhere in this process it became a literal story. Maybe it needed to in order to separate it from the Mysteries. With the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora, you have now removed the original allegorical Jesus believers and the literalists have free reign to shape the story into what we have today.

Am I off base? A year ago, I still assumed that Jesus was a real historical person (not a savior nor god, but still a real human that existed). My, what a 180 degree turn I have made! I still have little moments where I think the possibility is still there....

Min, I am still waiting on the Jesus Puzzle to arrive. If it doesn't come soon, you may have to scan a page a day and post it. I can't wait to dive into it.

I found this in Carrier's essay which seems to be a repudiation of that well-known apologetic clown, J. P. Holding.

Even taking in the compass of the whole Roman Empire, Holding himself quotes N. T. Wright that belief in Christ's resurrection "was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire." That's not an impressive rate of success. In fact, it's downright dismal. One might contrast this with the success of the Scientific Revolution, when modern scientific principles launched from a controversial fringe movement in 1600 to near-universal praise and acceptance from every echelon of society by 1750. Christianity only wishes it had seen that kind of triumph. In the end, it could only gain that scale of success after numerous centuries, and even then only by force and intimidation.

If it doesn't come soon, you may have to scan a page a day and post it. I can't wait to dive into it.

Eeek!

seeker wrote:By the fourth century they were pretty strong. I think early on its more about exploitation. They weren't thinking so much about a powerful quasi-governmental organization as they were looking at setting themselves at the head of a bunch of people who would support them in fine style.

But I think that's quite a big assumption to make, given that we know so little about them, apart from their writings which were, in large part, rants against the 'heretics'.

apart from their writings which were, in large part, rants against the 'heretics'.

Not to mention self-serving delusions.

Maybe what seeker is suggesting is an almost Bolshevik-like attention to doctrine and party discipline as opposed to the more varied outlook of the other so-called christians of the time?

Minimalist wrote:I found this in Carrier's essay which seems to be a repudiation of that well-known apologetic clown, J. P. Holding.

The whole essay is a point by point demolition of Holding. Its really a pretty good essay if you haven't already read it.

My point though is that a block of 30,000 or so people marching in lockstep in Rome would have been pretty powerful against less organized political groups.

pattylt wrote:One of the ideas I am becoming more and more convinced of, is that Christianity succeeded because the Jews, who knew it was allegorical, rejected it. This forced the early Christians to take it outside of Judea and to the Gentile audience who did not know nor understand Judaism and their midrashic type stories. Somewhere in this process it became a literal story. Maybe it needed to in order to separate it from the Mysteries. With the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora, you have now removed the original allegorical Jesus believers and the literalists have free reign to shape the story into what we have today.

Am I off base? A year ago, I still assumed that Jesus was a real historical person (not a savior nor god, but still a real human that existed). My, what a 180 degree turn I have made! I still have little moments where I think the possibility is still there....

Min, I am still waiting on the Jesus Puzzle to arrive. If it doesn't come soon, you may have to scan a page a day and post it. I can't wait to dive into it.

You can always go to Doherty's site and whet your appetite with his excerpts from the book, which I think constitute the first chapter or two.

Minimalist wrote:

apart from their writings which were, in large part, rants against the 'heretics'.

Not to mention self-serving delusions.

Maybe what seeker is suggesting is an almost Bolshevik-like attention to doctrine and party discipline as opposed to the more varied outlook of the other so-called christians of the time?

That's about right Min. Christian hierarchy is almost military even early on. Its clear from their writings that the early literalists were muscling people who didn't agree with them out of their way to tighten control.

You can always go to Doherty's site and whet your appetite with his excerpts from the book, which I think constitute the first chapter or two.

Oh, I have already devoured that site. It was my first real look at how it might be allegorical as I had been reading and searching for a more detailed look at the possibility. I am still trying to come to grips with the "why" portion, however. I am having problems visualizing why Jesus needed to become real. What drove an allegorical Christ into an historical one? Could the message only be accepted if he walked and talked on earth?

Min, does the Jesus Puzzle deal with the "why"? I am hoping it does.

To a degree, Patty, but it means psychoanalyzing people who lived 1900 years ago and further doing so on the basis of writings which have been doctored over time. The previous quote about Lycurgus and William Tell, the creation of perfect heroes to explain one's own beliefs, seems the most logical and, as he says, it isn't as if it hasn't happened before.

Minimalist wrote:To a degree, Patty, but it means psychoanalyzing people who lived 1900 years ago and further doing so on the basis of writings which have been doctored over time. The previous quote about Lycurgus and William Tell, the creation of perfect heroes to explain one's own beliefs, seems the most logical and, as he says, it isn't as if it hasn't happened before.

I think it's more than that. They lost - or deliberately dropped - the deeper half of the teachings which hinged on the second (fire) initiation. The motive will hang on whether it was a deliberate dropping, or whether it just kinda got lost somehow ...

There were Gnostics like Valentinus and Marcion who were considered part of their organisation (however big or effective it was) until 140 CE, when they were chucked out.

Imo, that's when the 'something', whatever is was, happened.

It's also interesting how the early Christians were so often confused with the Nazerenes. In the NT, we have 'Jesus the Nazerene' and Paul is referred to as a Nazerene. The Nazerenes were connected with the Samaritans and the northern kingdom. I think there is a line of enquiry there ...

They lost - or deliberately dropped - the deeper half of the teachings which hinged on the second (fire) initiation.

Xtianity needs to be seen as one more 'salvation cult' among many. Somewhere in here, Doherty points out that Mithras and Isis and Tammuz, etc. promised the same benefits to followers as jesus. With this emphasis on the "next world" what is the need for deeper teachings in this one? As seeker suggests, they had a church hierarchy all lined up to handle those issues and the foot soldiers were just supposed to do what they were told.


Edit:

I found the comment:

Christianity was also in competition with the Greco-Roman mystery cults. Most of the latter's saviour gods, (Osiris, Isis, Attis, Mithras, etc.) bestowed benefits similar to those enjoyed by devotees of Christ. A very important benefit was protection against the hostile demon spirits that were believed by Jew and pagan alike to pervade the world's very atmosphere, harassing and crippling people's lives.

The why of it is always going to be speculation. Certainly we're unlikely to ever find anything that spells it out for us after a millennium of Christian cover-ups.

What makes Christianity unique is their intolerance, they were unwilling to be a part of the greater 'salvation cult' culture. i think that drive to paint themselves as unique is what pushed them into literalism. Early on I think they realized that they could more easily get a following of the intellectually lazy by pairing their religion down to a literal message that didn't have to be studied or even really fully understood. That's why they started pushing the notion of belief over works.