What factors were behind the rapid growth of Christianity in its first few centuries?

[xero]

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Sigh—I thought this was put into the closed group—that’s why I upvoted it—where it should have been in the first place (IMO) but it was not.

 It is so wearing for opposers, who misunderstand fundamental ways of how God deals with humans, to malign the Witness organization based upon false premises. 

The trick is, not to sanitize the present, but to desanitize the past. Plenty of responsible ones in Bible history have said or done wrong or clumsy things, yet continued to be used prominently in Jehovah’s service. No reason to think it would be any different today.

What I'm curious about is what it was about the people in the first century that was so incredibly convincing to people. It's not as if there weren't other individuals claiming this or that thing, moreover it was totally persecuted by the religious leaders and the Romans had no use for any of their nonsense either. It's also not as if people were thoroughly ensconced in rhetoric and logic and had at their mental disposal a myriad of apologetic arguments. 

I'm thinking that the gifts of the spirit must have been running rampant, at least enough so to convince a huge number of people in a short time, otherwise the whole thing might have easily been snuffed. We have to realize what an incredible departure the whole Christianity thing was and how powerful the testimony of the converts must have been.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, xero said:

moreover it was totally persecuted by the religious leaders

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.

1 hour ago, xero said:

and the Romans had no use for any of their nonsense either.

There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)

Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 

1 hour ago, xero said:

It's also not as if people were thoroughly ensconced in rhetoric and logic and had at their mental disposal a myriad of apologetic arguments.

Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.

1 hour ago, xero said:

I'm thinking that the gifts of the spirit must have been running rampant, at least enough so to convince a huge number of people in a short time, otherwise the whole thing might have easily been snuffed.

I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.

It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!

The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.

(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

[JW Insider]

Also what about angels? They must have still had the ability to guide circumstances here and there on earth, even when the spiritual gifts waned.

And there was another practical method of preaching that we don't have. There was a reason that Paul didn't go from house to house. And there was a reason that Jesus forbid the 70 disciples from going house to house. It was because you had an immediate assembly as soon as got into the gates of most towns/cities. You could begin announcing the reason for your visit in the town square and draw a crowd. There was no reason to go from house to house. It would be a waste of time (and they were never going to finish the circuit of towns in Israel as it was).

But there was always a chance to find multiple favorable ears, all that would listen, by just walking into a town and start preaching to the crowd in the marketplace, the square, the agora.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Not that is has nothing to do with Rutherford, but your personal stance about disliking the preaching work method,

Are you kidding? I love the house to house work!! It's true that Rutherford made excuses as to why he didn't participate, but I bet he would have loved it, too, if he had just did done more of it. At least he pushed the laws of the land to make it more legal and more commonplace. Rutherford deserves a lot of credit for why Witnesses have the top reputation for the religion that preaches the kingdom from house-to-house, even after the hiatus.

I think it's also a very appropriate method for today. We don't really have a town square "agora" equivalent today. House to house isn't as effective as some methods, such as good publicity in widely watched media, but it's still the perfect method for most of us.

My true preference is a mix of face-to-face Bible studies for about half my time, and house-to-house for the other half. I like to see the householder's face to see how they are really responding.

In Jesus' day and in Paul's day you could find interest by preaching in a synagogue or town square or another public meeting place, and then follow up on that interest by getting invited to the home to develop the interest of that person/family.

[JW Insider]

Moving posts from another topic to their own topic here.

Since xero's post is now first in this topic, the software makes it his. Also, I can reword the title of the topic if I didn't get it right.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Since xero's post is now first in this topic, the software makes it his. Also, I can reword the title of the topic if I didn't get it right.

Xero schmero!

He may get top billing but it is in response to MY comment. 

That mean I am the kingpin! Moi! TrueTomHarley! THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT! Xero, my rear end! I can’t stand that guy’s whining. Hope he goes to some other congregation so they can deal with it!  

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

What was Paul's farewell to the Ephesians? And why should it matter?

[Acts 20:]20 I did not shrink back from declaring any-thing that was helpful to you as I taught you publicly and from house to house,

It does not contradict what Jesus said, because the Greek here does really not say anything about going from house to house. The KJV translators had a lot to do with this translation, and "from house to house" has therefore become a common English way of saying "in your houses."

Paul is saying, basically: I didn't just teach you brothers publicly [among other people], but even [privately] in your homes.

Notice that the literal expression in the Kingdom Interlinear is "according to houses" not "from house to house."

This is different from Jesus; words in Luke 10:7 which actually forbid (under those circumstances) going from house to house. Literally: "Do not you be going from out of a house into [another] house."

And, of course, Jesus explains why in the context.

Most translations still follow the KJV example, but some have used a more koine-Greek-based translation, saying:

NLT: I never shrank back from telling you what you needed to hear, either publicly or in your homes.

Latin Vulgate: quomodo nihil subtraxerim utilium quo minus adnuntiarem vobis et docerem vos publice et per domos

CEB

You know I held back nothing that would be helpful so that I could proclaim to you and teach you both publicly and privately in your homes.

CEV

When I preached in public or taught in your homes, I didn't hold back from telling anything that would help you.

ERV

I always did what was best for you. I told you the Good News about Jesus in public before the people and also taught in your homes.

GNT

You know that I did not hold back anything that would be of help to you as I preached and taught in public and in your homes.

TLB

Yet I never shrank from telling you the truth, either publicly or in your homes.

ICB

You know I preached to you, and I did not hold back anything that would help you. You know that I taught you in public and in your homes.

 

Also, I should add that I don't think Paul never would go from one house to the next in his preaching, if the situation called for it. It's just that Acts 20:20 isn't really about that kind of preaching activity.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Moving posts from another topic to their own topic here.

“Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere to put their posts in proper categories. And what is more, he even brought malcontents into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” For they had previously seen Srecko in the city with him, and they assumed that JWI had brought him into the temple.”

Act now! The next ten comments should be on entirely different topics until he gives up on this nonsense!

[TrueTomHarley]

26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

“Do not you be going from out of a house into [another] house."

I dunno. I think this is more like my son-in-law not going to another house until he has cleaned out my fridge.

[Pudgy]

I … I’ve been concerned lately about the outbreak of monkey-pox, and I’ve been thinking about wearing my welding helmet.

[JW Insider]

I know that the Librarian mentioned liking tacos a couple of times.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know that the Librarian mentioned liking tacos a couple of times.

That old hen!