**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And as an Atheist, I wonder, why? Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? Or maybe Christianity simply hit the jackpot and got extremely famous?
another example of lying for Jesus?
Pretending to be an atheist because you think it'll give your apologetics more credibility, completely ignoring the fact that apologetics are not meant to convince others
Do you have compelling evidence that I'm not an Atheist? I mean, lying for the sake of "god" is a pretty contradictory thing. In the end, this would also be considered a "sin" if I was a believer. Dude, I just had a question. Maybe it sounded stupid to you, but I found it valid and decided to ask to people who I know that are much more experienced than me in this.
Because he lived right at the beginning of Pax Romana, when parchment was first invented, and was followed by a bunch of traveling doctors who acted as his missionaries. The religion they spawned was adopted by one of the most powerful empires of all time, eventually became an empire itself, and was aggressively spread across the globe, often through violent means.
Rome and Christianity were foundational elements of western culture. Christianity dominated Europe for centuries, then Europe colonized many parts of the world.
And monotheism was an incredibly unique and powerful innovation for theists. God loves you, has a plan for you, and will take care of you after you die. It’s an incredibly appealing dogma, on top of all the historical coincidences it benefited from. It fulfills many of man’s cognitive needs almost perfectly. 2,000 years ago, you couldn’t have designed a more appealing religion if you had tried.
Also, Christians often spread Christianity through brute force. It was forced on so many different groups of people and their own religions and cultures destroyed in order to stop the spread of "false gods." You see it in the Bible, and you see it throughout history.
To clarify, I'm not saying OT stories are true, but that the religion is centered around violently spreading itself.
This is not really accurate.
[There is zero historical evidence for the existence of missionaries of the alleged jesus while we has alive. All of those stories were fabricated well after his death.](https://youtu.be/bQmMFQzrEsc?si=3ceVDZFTb6oQWqu3)
Christianity proliferated because Rome amalgamated a bevy of already extant spiritual beliefs and mythologies, uniting a collection of traditions under the umbrella of Christendom.
Paganism, Sumerian / Babylonian mythology, etc…christianity is a hodgepodge.
TL;DR…even the alleged historical jesus wasn’t a notable figure in any way, shape, or form. There were no followers of (or believers in) jesus while he was alive.
All of the stories were invented afterwards and then spread by the Romans through conquest.
It goes even further. There doesn't even need to be an actual Jesus for Christianity to be successful. There just needs to be someone who *claims* there's an actual Jesus.
There is a good argument that the first Christian, probably Peter, had a "revelation" of Jesus found in "divinely inspired" pesher readings of scripture. His Jesus was a pre-existing angel incarnated in the flesh and in the realm of the Earth but not on the Earth, rather in the firmament, where he was killed by Satan and his demons, who didn't realize who he was, and buried there to be resurrected and ascend back into the upper heavens. His death and resurrection open the pathway to everlasting life and salvation from sin.
There are pretty strong hints of this theology in the writings of Paul and it was at least as likely as not the original doctrine. This was what was preached by Peter until he found another Jew who found his revelation convincing, who convinced another, who convinced another, who convinced Paul, who convinced another, so forth and so on. There's nothing extraordinary about this. It's how new cults spread.
It's also exactly the same salvation pathway that modern Christianity espouses: believing the death and resurrection of Jesus save you is the way. It was just revised by gospel writers into a historical fiction that was easier for the common folk to buy into and the original, more abstract celestial beginnings were lost in the early disorganized development of the church.
I find very interesting that Romans have the custom of learning their oponentes best warfare skill and beating them at it, and the best warfare skill of Jews was getting ideas from other religions and integrating them on their own religion while improving on them.
The roman empire mostly coexisted fine with christians with the exception of a a few select rulers and the odd few decades here and there. The idea that the roman empire was trying to stamp out christianity for centuries is largely a myth.
It was much more hostile to jews, which is one likely reason Christians sought to differentiate themselves.
Then yes, early into 300s Rome adopted christianity as the official religion, spread it across europe, which then spread it across the globe.
They persecuted every person who didn't say that the emperor was a god. Christianity wasn't special
Then Constantine determined that claiming to be one of many gods wasn't nearly as effective as being the one and only God's chosen ruler of everything
It was so effective, for over 1000 years the entirety of Europe lived in poverty, disease, famine, war, slavery, and illiteracy under a religious dictatorship. Everyone except the Monarchy and Clergy died before they turned 35 if they even survived infancy
Isn't it weird that the entire time Christianity was at its absolute height, the entire continent lived under dictatorship? As soon as Religious Dictatorship was overthrown, life expectancy doubled and science brought us germ theory instead of angering God
>Everyone except the Monarchy and Clergy died before they turned 35 if they even survived infancy
I just want to correct this bit. Average life expectancy is calculated as the average expected life span from birth. It is extremely skewed by infant and child mortality rates. The reason life expectancy was so low back then was because babies died a lot. Those who survived till their teenage years normally lived for 70+ years.
Actually 35 already removes infant (<1 year) mortality (though I'm not sure why that's better)
35 does include the clergy and aristocracy which is where you find your old agers. But again, it doesn't really mean much to say people who survived til 80 normally lived for 80+ years.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life\_expectancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)
>Actually 35 already removes infant (<1 year) mortality
Ah. I didn't notice that. Still, child mortality rates are not removed and they also extremely reduce the average expected life span.
>(though I'm not sure why that's better)
It's better because of how averages work. Averages get heavily skewed by extreme values. For example, take this number sequence. 1, 1, 6, 9, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60. In this sequence, 60 is both the mode (most common value) and the median (middle-most value) but the average is 37.7 because the extreme numbers skew it.
Remove the 1s and the sequence becomes 6, 9, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60. The mode and median are still 60 but the average now jumps to 46.875. Because the extreme value of 1 got removed.
On a similar vein, average life expectancy gets skewed to be much lower because of infant mortality and child mortality. If you survive to teenage, you were very likely to live till your 60s in the medieval period.
>It's better because of how averages work
I understand why it's better for making the average what you're looking to make it
I don't understand why it's ok to ignore children dying. Yeah it's a lot. And that's bad. Some might say, worse, even
Again, you could make the life expectancy 75 if you just removed all of the poor, starving, and cannon fodder people. Problem is, that's \~100% of the population
You have to make the cutoff somewhere
>If you survive to teenage, you were very likely to live till your 60s in the medieval period.
Quotes from the wikipedia entry:
[Early Middle Ages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages) - A Gaulish boy surviving to age 20 might expect to live 25 more years, while a woman at age 20 could normally expect about 17 more years
[Late medieval English peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_in_the_Middle_Ages) - Life expectancy at age 10 reached 32.2 remaining years
These are not "likely to live till your 60s"
Agnes of Rome was martyred for not marrying a governor’s son. Not for denying the memoir or was God. That’s an over-generalisation.
As for the rest of your comment, that’s quite the abomination of history you vomit onto this chat. In this 1000 years of legalised Christianity you have the first public education, hospitals, and development of science. Wars? Yeah, cuz life was so peaceful before Christianity. Wow.
Who said anything about Agnes of Rome? You seriously thought I was referring to a single instance of heresy? What do you think inquisitions were?
>1000 years of legalised Christianity
Hahahaha, dude, Christianity was the law. That's how heresy becomes punishable by death
>the first public education, hospitals, and development of science
Only if you don't know anything about any part of history other than that Christianity just has to be the best
Here's life expectancy for the 1500 years Christianity ruled
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life\_expectancy#Variation\_over\_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time)
Here's a chart of the time right after the American and French Revolutions:
[https://humanprogress.org/trends/life-expectancy-is-rising/](https://humanprogress.org/trends/life-expectancy-is-rising/)
Quote: *That increase was largely a consequence of better nutrition and deployment of public health measures, such as filtered water and sewers*
You know, sewers like ancient Greece and Rome had. Instead of believing disease was caused by demons. Instead of throwing their waste out the window and their plague victims into the rivers they drank from. Part of the Enlightenment, when ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, discourse, art, architecture, and governance reemerged and triggered the violent overthrow of Religious Dictatorship.
Here is the Catholic church trying to stifle science to the very end: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo\_Galilei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)
Here is how disproportionate the Monarchy and Clergy granted themselves power relative to everyone else, even on the verge of violent rebellion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates\_General\_of\_1789](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_General_of_1789)
Agnes of Rome was just an example of how martyrdom went beyond just admitting to false gods.
It is true that many European nations made adopted Christian laws to be their own. That's when the state controlled the laws, not the Church. The inquisitions were state run, not Church run.
As for life expectancy, Christianity alone offers eternal life, so that's awesome. But let's talk about life on earth. So what of your argument? The whole world was ignorant of pathogenesis, of course. So what of Greece and Rome had aqueducts? Did Christians do away with the aqueducts and sewer systems?
As for Galileo, the Catholic Church defended science. Galileo couldn't prove his theory. In fact, it was proven till hundreds years later. Galileo also thought comets were optical illusions. Galileo was put on house arrest by the Pope, who happened to be a former friend of Galileo. He was put on house arrest because Galileo insulted the Pope. That's what you call "stifling science to the every end"? Doubtful. Stifling science to the very end is what the John Money Institute does in modern America, just so you know what stifling science means.
I'll get to "Estates of General" later. I can't wait to see where your'e going with that one.
Hahahaha, oh man. Your desperate reaching for excuses is just demonstrative of how much Kool aid you've been drinking
Nations "adopted" Christianity. War, inquisition, oppression, and everything else bad came from the state, and the church was all about questioning whether the earth was the center of the universe.
You really don't need to say anything more. We know the basic level of thought you're operating at
>Christianity alone offers eternal life, so that's awesome
No, it doesn't "offer". It "promises". You know how making promises on behalf of someone else works so good all the time...
Yeah, question about the eternal life... Pretty much makes this life pointless, right? God knows who will earn enough Jesus Bucks for eternal life already. So God is creating the other people... to watch them suffer?
Also you must be pro choice, right? The person having the abortion goes to hell like they deserve and the baby goes straight to eternal paradise immediately. It's perfect
>Did Christians do away with the aqueducts and sewer systems?
Yes
And, they threw their waste out of their windows and disposed of plague victims in the same rivers they drank from
The original Bible was very likely covered in human feces
>Galileo couldn't prove his theory
That's why all of his works were banned. Not just the Copernican model works
>He was put on house arrest because Galileo insulted the Pope
Pure idiocy. There was a trial for heresy because of an insult. And I thought you said the church didn't control the laws
>what the John Money Institute does in modern America, just so you know what stifling science means.
Plenty of people are stifling science today.
You really don't know what an argument is, do you...
>"Estates of General"
Yeah, a short lived governing body, meant to appease the starving masses. The Monarchy got one vote, the clergy got one vote, and then everyone else got one vote
Sorry man, you are clearly way too far gone. You have near zero knowledge or understanding of history. And the history you think you know, you've rewritten or it has been rewritten for you.
*Galileo insulted the Pope, and so the Pope, who was his friend and also had no legal authority, arrested him and tried him for heresy. He was only sentenced to exile instead of death. And all of his writings were banned. Not because he argued for the earth not being the center of the universe. But because he insulted his friend. All of this coming after 1000 years of the church being supportive of science and the state executing people for heresy. And right before the people violently overthrew the monarchy and the clergy*
Hah adorable. No he did a hell of a lot more than just "legalize" it (and he wasn't even the one who did that part, it was his predecessor who legalized it). Constantine practically adopted it as the official state religion of Rome (something his successor would do officially), and started the process of conversion or syncretization of the existing Roman religious traditions to it, and even eventually encouraged the pillaging and destruction of Roman temples and forced suppression of competing religions. He had churches and basilicas built to replace them and started elevating members of the clergy to high ranking official state positions.
He also called for the first council of Nicea to reconcile various disputes and discrepancies within the then fairly splintered and factionalized religion (not that Christianity has ever been completely unified, but between Constantine and the Great Schism there were a lot fewer competing interpretations or denominations) and work towards establishing an official canon.
He also made it the symbol under which he would conquer, and forced adoption of it on those he defeated as a means of pacifying them (various messages emphasizing pacifism and obedience like "blessed are the meek" or "turn the other cheek", or "render unto Caesar" were very useful for this purpose). A tradition you may notice continued for centuries through European colonialism.
The role Constantine had in shaping and growing the popularity and influence of early Christianity is difficult to overstate.
Constantine didn’t even become Christian tip his deathbed. He allied with Christian for political gain, which you allude to in your comment.
My issue with OP is that he contributes Christianity’s 2000 years of success to 150 years of Roman support, after Christianity was persecuted by that same Roman Empire for twice as long.
>Constantine didn’t even become Christian tip his deathbed. He allied with Christian for political gain, which you allude to in your comment
Think about that for just a minute. So you're acknowledging that the guy who had a huge influence on the shaping and spreading of early Christianity didn't even necessarily need to believe any of it himself at the time. So a huge factor in the adoption and spread of Christianity has nothing to do with the merits or validity of the belief system itself, and more the political utility it served for those who stood to gain from adopting, spreading, and enforcing it.
Whether he believed any of it or not is basically irrelevant to the influence he had on it, which is part of the whole point.
>My issue with OP is that he contributes Christianity’s 2000 years of success to 150 years of Roman support, after Christianity was persecuted by that same Roman Empire for twice as long.
I don't know if you know this, but the Roman empire was a pretty big deal at the time, and the influence it had on shaping Europe didn't exactly just cease to exist 150 years later, and it certainly didn't just stop being Christian (not even to mention the Eastern Roman Empire, which would persist for much longer and was also officially Christian). You know there's an actual reason why the Vatican is in Rome right, that's not just a weird coincidence, or why it's called the Roman Catholic Church?
It set the stage for Christianity to become the dominant religion in Europe and subsequent spread throughout the world. It marks the turning point from being elevated from a relatively minor and persecuted regional religion to a global power. The subsequent European monarchies that arose in the wake of the Western Roman Empire after it dissolved didn't abandon the Christianity they inherited from it, and they almost certainly wouldn't have had it so inextricably tied to their concept of legitimizing their monarchical power to begin with if not for Rome's official adoption of it. The idea that kings must be ordained by bishops and only popes could ordain emperors came out of Rome's influence, which all started with Constantine.
If you don't know that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity then I really don't know what to say besides you don't know enough about history to comment.
Nothing I said was false. In spite of persecution Christianity spread like wild fire without Rome’s support. Only after 300 years did Rome legalise it, and eventually decided to ally with Christianity, because it was impossible to eradicate.
And yet despite your comment, they DID adopt Christianity and eventually forced the faith on other people and led it to become the dominant faith in its territories.
Are you not aware of the fact that it eventually became the state religion of Rome?
It wasn’t called The Holy Fuck All Empire. It was the Holy Roman Empire. As in, the Roman Empire eventually became the Holy Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation are two different things. There were a few centuries between the fall of the western Roman Empire and the declaration of the Holy Roman Empire.
Nevertheless, Rome spent 300 years persecuting Christians. Its disingenuous to say Rome backed up Christianity and helped promulgate it. Christianity survived the persecution, Rome finally allowed Christianity after 300 years, and now we give Rome credit for its success? Nah.
1. Moving the goalposts. You questioned whether the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. It did.
2. You'd most likely never have heard of Christianity if not for Constantine. There were countless Jewish and Christian sects, fighting against each other and the authorities for influence. Almost all lost in history's dustbin.
3. "Impossible to suppress". Rome's persecution is overstated by apologists. It was for the most part sporadic and localized. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_Christians\_in\_the\_Roman\_Empire#](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire#)
Many comments are saying that Rome is what promulgated the spread of Christianity. Rome tortured to death the founder of Christianity. Then tortured to death 12 of the 13 apostles of that founder. The first 33 popes were either tortured to death or murdered. Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years, then supported Christians for 150, then fell. Rome helped in that 150 years spread Christianity, but by no means did Christianity hinge on Romes support.
Every follower of Christianity for the first 300 years knew that torture and death likely awaited them if they became Christian, but Christianity still grew and grew. There is something far deeper to Christianity's success than government support which didn't exist for 300 years.
"Then tortured to death 12 of the 13 apostles of that founder."
Didn't happen.
"Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years"
As pointed out, the persecution was sporadic and local. Check the Wikipedia article. You're just really overstating the headwinds they faced.
Torturing to death or murdering every leader of the Christian Church for 1st 300 years is systematic, not "sporadic".
Torturing and killing every Christian they found, feeding them to lions, forcing them to be burned, etc,...was systematic. Anyone can edit your wiki link, even me. If you want to source, then look at the historians of that period between 33-300AD.
Most of these were finally recorded in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Writing really took off in this period. Much of the information came from Eusebius, Jerome and Origen. Leading up to that time frame information was passed by oral tradition, except in in cases of the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Josephus.
1) James the Greater was killed by King Herod Agrippa
2) James the Lesser was stoned to death in Jerusalem
3) Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. That's not really disputed by anyone.
4) Thomas is uncertain, but tradition in India states that he was martyred there by a spear.
5) 3rd century Hyppolytus writes that Bartholomew was flayed alive. Interesting fact, in Bosnia in 1990's a Catholic priest was flayed alive, so the martyrdom continues to this day. I met that priest's friend who had pictures of the atrocity. The picture depicted a man's face without skin. I was in highschool at the time. The friend told me that the martyr was still alive at the time of the picture taken by communists. Another priest was burned alive but no picture. To avoid being flayed and burned alive, all the priest had to do was apostatize. The one burned was in a wheel chair at the time.
6) St. Andrew was crucified in 60 AD by Roman Governor, Aegeas in Achaia (Near Gulf of Corinth). This was during the reign of Nero, one of the worst Christian persecutors.
7) Phillip's death is uncertain. There are two traditions that don't date prior to 3rd century AD. One is that he died of natural causes. The other is that he was crucified in Hierapolis.
8) Matthew's fate is contradicted by various writes of the 3rd century. He has been reported as being burned, stoned, beheaded, or stabbed.
9) Matthias (replaced Judas) was either hacked to death or crucified.
10) Simon the Zealot was crucified at Edessa in 67 AD.
11) Jude was martyred by being clubbed to death in modern day Iran.
12) Paul was beheaded for his faith.
Constantine legalised it. Rome fell 150 years later. So Christianity existed 2000 years and we’re going to chalk up its success to 150 years of support from a regime that spent twice that time persecuting it? Let’s be real.
I think most people would indeed say that becoming the state religion of the largest empire in the world was the turning point for Christianity's success. Part of the reason Rome fell is precisely because people in it no longer held to Roman religion and culture.
Jesus’ resurrection was the turning point. Rome helped Christianity, but the life of Christianity did not hinge on Rome. Anyone who legalised Christianity or promulgates it is helping Christianity, whether it be a peasant or a king. But the fact the Christianity grew under Roman suppression for 300 years proves that it did not depend on Rome
First, the premise of your question fundamentally misunderstands Christianity's history. You assume that Christianity is some sort of static teaching derived from a real person named Jesus Christ, when in fact it was an evolving religion which was -- and is -- *constantly adapting* to the times. It's not magic, it's not even luck. It's *evolution*.
Christianity has very little to do with the actual life of Jesus or his teachings. The elements of the New Testament that are the actual teachings of Jesus are extraordinarily scant. Only a handful of sayings can actually be attributed him.
The form of Christianity closest to what Jesus actually taught -- the Jewish Christians descending from the ministry of James the brother of Jesus -- died out very early (in the 2nd century). So in a sense you can say that the Christianity of Jesus himself lasted less than a century.
Then it gets hijacked by Paul, who never even heard Jesus speak, and who teaches a completely different Christianity with lots of influences from Greco-Roman sources. Later Christians continue to weld more and more Roman and Neoplatonic elements to it, until they finally luck out with the conversion of Constantine. If there was any stroke of luck in the Christian story, it was that. That and the arrow that killed Julian.
But no, it's mostly not luck, it's adaptation. Christianity changes its story every time history asks it to do so. It's putty.
>Then it gets hijacked by Paul, who never even heard Jesus speak, and who teaches a completely different Christianity with lots of influences from Greco-Roman sources
And Paul himself seems to openly disagree with the Jewish Christians at the time. He even says in Galatians that anyone who tries to say converts must be circumcized, well, such a man ought to chop his dick off. That's in the Bible.
Paul changed everything and Christianity is really more of a Paul religion than a Jesus one. If you take away Paul, I think Christianity dies within a generation or two as just another radical sect of second temple Judaism.
I thought Paul was against circumcision! He says it a few times and Paul is actually very anti Semitic. Having said all that, I agree that Christie as we know today, is Pauline Christianity!
Yes, Paul says in Galatians that circumcision is not a requirement. That's what I was trying to say but it came out wrong.
He goes on to say "anyone who tells you that you MUST be circumcized should just slice their own dong off".
It's wild but yeah Paul really says this in Galatians. He was a bit of a wild card sometimes.
"I met with Cephas and James in Jerusalem, and they added nothing to me"
He's basically saying "yeah I met with those guys but they didn't tell me anything I didn't hear directly from Jesus himself, and let's remember, Jesus may have talked to those guys after he rose, but he made a special trip back from Heaven to share the gospel directly with me, so, I mean, who is the real authority here? Me or them?"
True true! I have read the Bible a few times. It’s interesting to note how different Paul was. When I was in a Christian family, we chalked it up to@yes their inspired” but they weren’t robots, and “God” allowed then time express their personalities and free will to tell different aspect of the story while still maintaining the basis. Now as an atheist, it’s more probable that, since we know the epistles came first, that Christianity had a source with the Greeks, a”Logos” source. Over time, they were various people who had disciples , John the Baptist” disciples were different from Jesus disciples and they’re was a “dispute” among them, and Paul had his own views. Not inspired at all if you look at it now in hindsight and through the lens of historians like Bart Erhman etc. clearly in the bi or itself, you can see power struggles, different groups of disciples all battling for supremacy and with different views!
> I thought Paul was against circumcision! He says it a few times and Paul is actually very anti Semitic.
No, he just doesn't think it is necessary for gentile christians to become jewish before becoming followers of Jesus. So it isn't that he thinks circumcision is wrong, just that that is part of what it means to be a Jew not a Christian.
So Jewish converts to Christianity should be circumcised and keep the law. And can also follow Jesus. And Gentile converts don't need to be circumcised and follow all the mosaic laws. And can also follow Jesus.
Because the moral evolutions of the time made the stories written about him useful to the powerful. A proselytising religion that says to obey your earthly masters was very useful to the kind of narcissists who made it the official religion of the Roman empire at the same time they worked to twist the image of the first Roman emperor to promote tolerance of Christianity into an irredeemable villain.
Also Judaism only refers to Christ as a false prophet in the same way as Christianity does about Mohammed. I don't know why you're being deliberately deceptive but it doesn't help your cause pretending to be an atheist.
>And as an Atheist, I wonder, why? Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? Or maybe Christianity simply hit the jackpot and got extremely famous?
As an "atheist", you should realize that fame and popularity do not make something true. Can you think of other examples of people that became famous? I can. I don't think that makes them gods.
>Why did Jesus get so famous?
Same reason Hercules is famous: People like to tell stories.
Achilles, Batman, Catwoman, Destro, Eros, Superman, ....et al are all famous because the stories get told, used, retold, embellished, spread around. Generally for entertainment and providing a bedrock for moral teachings, at times.
Plus, it was rather profitable to tell stories when there were no TVs and radios available, about 2000 years ago. Make up stories, delude the people, fleece the sheep.
If you want to understand this on a realistic, non-theological level, read up on some history about it. The Triumph Of Christianity by Bart Ehrman is a great overview of it.
Put in a slightly snappier way, whatever religion happens to be practiced by the region of the world that conquers/colonizes everywhere else is gonna be the biggest religion.
This is a great book, and it pretty much is written as the answer to the OP's question. There are a lot of interconnected reasons, but I suspect the largest one is that Christianity both proselytized and demanded exclusivity.
There’s a lot of reason Christianity became dominant, but think about how easy it is to get into heaven in Christianity…you just gotta accept this dude.
If you study pure land Buddhism, you’ll see similar features.
So you have people who are not guaranteed a good afterlife (or one at all) being offered eternal joy for accepting some dead guy as your lord and saviour? Sounds easy enough…
"think about how easy it is to get into heaven in Christianity…you just gotta accept this dude"
This is a straw man if I've ever seen one. The Bible does not say accepting Christ is easy.
Matthew 7 13:14
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
>This is a straw man if I've ever seen one. The Bible does not say accepting Christ is easy.
He didn't say that the Bible said that accepting Christ is easy, he said that getting into heaven within Christianity was easy, and could be done by accepting Christ. Before Christianity do you know how you got into the heaven of the Abrahamic God? By being Jewish. For a non jew, Christianity is a much easier way to get into heaven. Converting to Christianity is far easier than converting to Judaism.
I don’t care what the bible says for this argument. I’m just assessing the requirements. Have faith. Accept Jesus as lord and saviour.
There are plenty of traditions that focus on the universalist aspects of Christianity and that it’s by grace that people are saved.
Just cause you’re cherry pick a line that says it’s hard to be a Christian doesn’t mean it actually is.
I’m capable of making the assessment myself and so are others.
>And as an Atheist, I wonder, why? Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? Or maybe Christianity simply hit the jackpot and got extremely famous?
Its because Western civilization conquered more of the world than other civilizations, and they imposed Christianity wherever they went. This question is like asking if English is "true" or something based on the fact that its the most common official language in the world. Both cultural artifacts were essentially spread through conquest.
>Why did Jesus get so famous?
Political pressure and luck of the draw combined with people's propensity for superstition and memes.
>Seriously, why did Jesus (or at least the stories about him) cause such an impact in the world? There have been many gods and different faiths throghout human history. Some of them has surely made a certain impact, like Mohammad (Islam) or Buddha (Buddhism).
Different mythologies become more or less prevalent in different places and different times due to all kinds of variables.
>But we can all agree the Jesus had the biggest presence as a religious leader so far.
Hahah, no we can't. Muslims certainly wouldn't. Neither would Buddhists. Nor atheists.
>The question is, why? Why did he become so famous at the point that other religions adapted him into their beliefs?
Learn a bit if the history of the development and evolution of religious mythologies and you'll see why other mythologies may (or may not) have that character in them, and vice versa.
>And as an Atheist, I wonder, why?
My skeptical sense is tingling
>Can it be that it's because Christianity is true?
No, that does not follow and is, of course, an ad populum fallacy.
Fwiw - Buddhists don’t think Jesus reached *nirvana*. Nothing in the gospel accounts would suggest that, and it certainly isn’t a claim I’ve heard any Buddhists say outside of some new agey “all paths lead to the same heaven” type of thinker.
Exactly the same reason as why any other historical figure became immortalized: a bunch of people told stories about him in the decades after he died; some of these were written down. There’s really nothing special or unique about Jesus in regards to this.
The stories spawned a relatively small cult that remained small for a few centuries. Then 300 years later this religion was adopted as the official state religion of Rome. This led to it being spread throughout the world at the time.
The important thing is, Jesus really had almost nothing to do with it. He could have been a total fabrication, and as long as the stories were told and written down everything else would have proceeded exactly as it did.
The popularity of Jesus also did a lot of harm. Look at the crusades, Johnstown, Waco, and what happened to the Native American Indians when Christianity arrived in North America to name a few tragedies.
I don’t desire to be popular. I’m happy to just be who I am, ordinary, nothing special, but generally happy healthy and successful in life.
But if I were to become famous, I would rather it be in something based on reality like making a new discovery about chemistry, physics, biology or astronomy. A discovery that could measurably improve the quality of life for many with as few drawbacks as possible. I wouldn’t want to be known as the king of an imaginary hill.
Why did people wait nearly a century after his death to start writing about him? Were they busy doing laundry? And Christianity is just repackaged paganism... So does that make paganism true?
Massive, horrific crimes against humanity that dwarf anything done by anyone else.
So, as much as we value pure reason here, turns out it's pretty hard to counter "say I'm right or I'll break your kneecaps". Christianity was a local religion, limited to Europe and parts of Asia, until colonialism happened. Turns out nothing spreads your religion faster then showing up everywhere in the world and slaughtering everyone there until they claim to be Christians.
Christianity's success is, ironically, one of the biggest black marks on it. How successful would Christianity be on its own merits? We'll never know. The vast majority of converts to Christians throughout history did so with a metaphorical, and sometimes very literal, gun to their head.
Why did Allah or Vishnu or Shiva or Mithra or Baal or any of the other gods get so popular? Because people are gullible and comforting stories that promise eternal afterlife sell very well to credulous and gullible and vulnerable and irrational people.
Also, and not nearly secondary to the first point, Christianity was spread by the sword for a very long time, and until comparatively very recently in human history, the strangle hold that religion (namely Christianity) once had was dissolved by secularism and the enlightenment, thank goodness and science. One could be burned at the stake for owning a Bible in English, let alone professing atheism or engaging in other heretical behavior, for which there were many many examples.
Because you're looking at it from the lens of today. If you were born 2000 years ago, you wouldn't have heard of him. People born 2000 years from now may not think of Jahweh's zombie as anything more than Hades or Zeus.
Hinduism portraying Jesus as one of their gods ?
This never happened.
Buddhism saying that he reached Nirvana - also false. Though some say he may have reached Nirvana according to his general portrayal.
About why did it last so long ?
You gotta study the history of the catholic church for that answer.
Judaism doesn't accept him as their Messiah even when they came first.
About Islam accepting him as a prophet, they both are Abrahamic religions, and the acceptance vould be a diplomatic move to convert people.
I realise thay you haven't studied other factors and are presenting this argument based on ab argument you probably have heard.
I would be interested why you think Hinduism never adopted Jesus?
Around 15 years ago I travelled in Hindu areas of India and was told repeatedly that Jesus had a place in Hinduism.
I have also been told by numerous Buddhist that Jesus was a bodhisatva.
I was a Hindu muself with Buddhist friends.
Bodhisattva means someone who walks on the path of bodhi. The rough claims about Jesus make him seem like a bodhisattva.
And, no there is no mention of Jesus in hinduism, except for mention by corrupt politicians and cult leaders who are looking to broaden their following.
I also study comparative mythology as a hobby, so I would have some knowledge if it actually happened.
Edit : spelling mistakes.
>Seriously, why did Jesus (or at least the stories about him) cause such an impact in the world?
For one, it probably helps being made the state religion at the height of the Roman Empire.
And then there's annexing other religion's stories, rituals and festivities (see below)
>But we can all agree the Jesus had the biggest presence as a religious leader so far
No we don't. Ask any Buddhist or Muslim and they'll very likely have a different opinion.
>Like Hinduism, representing Jesus as one of the gods
So just like Christianity annexing other religion's rituals and festivities:
* The celebration of Christmas on December 25th, marking the birth of Jesus Christ, is taken from pre-Christian winter solstice festivals. The date was chosen to coincide with pagan festivals such as Saturnalia in Rome and Yule in Germanic traditions, which celebrated the rebirth of the sun and the return of light during the darkest time of the year. If you look at the Gospels, we know that Jesus wasn't born in December.:
* In the Gospel of Luke, it is mentioned that shepherds were in the fields at the time of Jesus' birth, keeping watch over their flocks by night (Luke 2:8). In the region of Bethlehem, where Jesus was believed to have been born, the weather during December would typically be too cold for shepherds to be out with their flocks at night. This clearly indicates that Jesus' birth may have occurred during a warmer season, such as spring or summer.
* The Gospel of Luke also mentions that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem for a census decreed by Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1-5). Now of course, such a census never took place. But historically, Roman censuses were not conducted during the winter months due to the difficulties of travel and inclement weather. It is more likely that a census would have been conducted during a more favorable season, again pointing away from December as the time of Jesus' birth.
* The Christian holiday of Easter, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, coincides with the celebration of spring fertility festivals in many cultures. The timing of Easter, which falls near the vernal equinox, shares similarities with ancient pagan festivals honoring fertility deities and the renewal of life.
* The Christian observance of All Saints' Day on November 1st, honoring saints and martyrs, may have been influenced by ancient Celtic festivals such as Samhain, which marked the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter. Halloween, celebrated on the evening before All Saints' Day, incorporates elements of Celtic and Gaelic traditions, including costumes, bonfires, and the belief in spirits roaming the earth.
* Saint Brigid's Day, celebrated on February 1st in honor of Saint Brigid of Kildare, coincides with the Celtic festival of Imbolc, which marked the beginning of spring and the lactation of ewes. Many customs associated with Saint Brigid's Day, such as making Brigid's crosses and lighting candles, have parallels with ancient pagan rituals.
Glycon got more famous and did it quicker. Jesus was very like the pagan religions that the Greeks were familiar with and being a Jew, he was exotic enough to intrigue them. He attracted self appointed priests, Glycon died out when his one inventor died. No one else took up the banner.
Christianity started in a particular place at a particular time, and was able to spread throughout the Roman Empire. It had a message that was attractive, and unlike the religion prevalent in the empire, was exclusive—a gain for Christianity was a loss for paganism. Its average growth rate until Constantine was probably roughly the same as that of Mormonism since its inception. But Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the empire, and then it really took off—Christians achieved secular power and Christianity was the place to be if you wanted to get ahead. And so Jesus, as Christianity’s object of reverence and worship, became well-known. As you pointed out, Mohammed and the Buddha are major figures too, but if you happen to live in a nation with a Christian heritage, Jesus will be more prominent. In other cultures, perhaps not so much. And of course, in a world where religions compete for power, just as in the business world, you see that a few achieve massive status, while others trail behind; Christianity happened to be the dominant religion of Europe during its colonial period, and one of its major exports, which helped fuel its spread. Now, it looks like Islam is set to outstrip Christianity in a few decades.
Right place, right time, otherwise Jesus was just another charismatic schizophrenic who managed to convince a few of the locals His hallucinations were real.
This is the sort of question that gets downvoted (and never answered) in r/AskHistorians. It’s a fundamentally unanswerable question because it comes down to “why did history happen.” Dumb luck, I guess. Probably lots of killing too.
I’ll answer one answerable bit. Jews did not incorporate Jesus into their beliefs. If you push a Jew on the question, they might point out that two thousand years ago there were various traditions of proofs of the restoration of the Davidic line, but that Jesus didn’t meet them. Given that “messiah” just means “anointed king” in Hebrew and absolutely not “incarnation of a deity,” I think we can pretty much establish that a historic Jesus didn’t topple the Roman government of Judea and restore the Davidic line.
If you’re an honest atheist and not a Christian troll pretending to be one, then the answer would be that various forces found Christianity politically useful.
People fail to understand that the gospels are essentially fiction written 40-130 years after Jesus’ death.
Jesus in real life was probably nowhere near as popular as the gospels claim he was. He might not have even been a real person, but even if he was, he probably didn’t have that large of a following.
Jesus got famous because the author of the gospel of Mark wrote a good story. Judaism was forced to reform after the Romans destroyed Judea and the Jewish temple in the year 70. Mark was a reaction to the destruction of the temple and gave Jewish communities a new theology for a post temple world.
The real reason Jesus is famous is the same reason Mohammed is famous. The Roman emperors promoted Christianity. Otherwise it’d probably just be another Jewish sect.
It takes a political leader like a king to make religion popular.
>Can it be that it's because Christianity is true?
No, it's because the Romans are dorks. Specifically, Emperor Constantine who turned it into the state religion. Afterwards, Rome marched across the rest of Europe, Asia, and everywhere else spreading the word of God at the tip of a sword destroying cultures and languages everywhere they went. And then their bastard offspring Spain, Italy, and Britain continued the tradition of "Christ and/or Genocide." All because one emperor decided to dick up everything for everyone else for all time. Had it not been for him, Christianity would have stayed a fringe cult, there'd be no Catholic church, no papal states, and it would be entirely debatable as to whether entire wars would have been fought and *had* they still be fought, it's unlikely "the wrong religion" would have been a factor.
Novelty.
Judaism grew in popularity in the Roman world along with the other religions from around the empire. Greek mystery religions spread wherever the empire went. Isis/Osiris, Romulus, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Dionysos, Demeter, and Persephone. All demigods/children of gods, who overcome death, and through faith in them you too can achieve everlasting life. All popular in the Roman Empire. Along comes a cult that takes the already popular and novel religion of Judaism and revolutionizes it with even better rules. It's now easier than ever to survive death. So slowly over a few hundred years it gains enough popularity to get a Roman emperor in its ranks. Once an emperor makes it the official religion of the empire, it's forced upon the empire. Since the empire is basically everywhere, everyone becomes Christian.
One important factor is that Christianity was different from most religions that it competed with at the time of its founding in two specific ways:
Exclusivity. If you became a Christian, you were expected to give up your ties to any other worship practice. Judaism is the only other religion at the time for which that was true. So all growth in Christianity was accompanied by decline of other religions. The cumulative effect over several generations was significant.
Evangelism. Christians sought converts. The pagan religions around at the time didn't really do that. They didn't care what you believed. Even the Jews didn't really proselytize.
So in comparison to the other religions in the first centuries after Jesus, Christianity was kind of like the Borg.
Buddhism had more than a certain impact. At one point it was everywhere south and east asia. But for Christianity, the answer is the Roman empire. Christianity became the official religion of the principal political unit of the west. After the western roman empire fell, the Church's network of administration and its collection of educated priests made it very useful for later monarchs - Charlemagne, the Saxon monarchs and so Christianity kept its political dominance in Europe. Then when Europe went to the new world, Christianity went and there it was once again imposed by the sword. When Europe colonized Africa, Christianity went there as well. Look at a world map. All the main Christian areas are either Europe, or old European colonies.
Jesus didn't get famous with his contemporaries. There are no contemporary historical accounts of him AT ALL. Josephus and Tacitus briefly mention him, in the context of his followers, some 60-80 years after his supposed lifetime. The earliest gospel, Mark, was most probably written around 70 AD.
Christianity started transitioning from a fringe cult to the state religion when Roman emperor Constantine formally converted around 312 AD. The reasons for his conversions are unclear (there is a legend he had a vision before a battle), but the facts are that he believed in the unity of church and state (meaning a monotheistic religion would have suited him), and his mother was a Christian. So yes, FELLOW ATHEIST, it was simply a jackpot.
I see way too many comments that say that Rome spread Christianity. Rome tortured to death the founder of Christianity. Then tortured to death 12 of the 13 apostles of that founder. The first 33 popes were either tortured to death or murdered. Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years, then finally supported Christians for 150, then fell. Rome helped in that 150 years spread Christianity, but by no means did Christianity hinge on Romes support.
Every follower of Christianity for the first 300 years knew that torture and death likely awaited them if they became Christian, but Christianity still grew and grew. There is something far deeper to Christianity's success than government support which didn't exist for the first 300 years.
Technological improvements. Travel became easier, news spreads faster…
Additionally, Christianity is unique in a way.
Christianity is rare in that it would rather convert you than kill you 9 out of 10 times. It’s more willing to accept parts of other cultures and integrate with them than it is to just wipe them out.
Look at all the traditions that Christianity has that were essentially stolen/adopted from other religion.
Christmas Trees… a pagan practice
Christmas in general… Saturnalia
Easter… another pagan ritual
Noah’s flood… Epic of Gilgamesh
Because Christianity is more willing to adopt other cultures and practices it’s easier for it to spread.
Other religions general kill young you don’t agree.
Jesus became do famous cause his ideas sound convincing for his not-so-smart contemporaries. Furthermore, powerful christians pushed on really hard on propagating his personality and his ideas. Paul apostle knew that strictly Jewish Orthodox movement (Early Christianity) isn't gonna be very popular, so he made a marketing decision by making it more liberal and allowed other nations to join. Jesus claimed that you should perform a long list of beliefs and deeds to be saved for eternal. Paul simplified and said belief in Jesus as Messiah is enough. Emperor Constantine essentially spread out Christianity to the whole world. For almost two millenias ultraaggressive christian marketing is taking place.
There have been regularly throughout history what we call "cult leaders". Appolonis of Tyana, Sabbatai Zevi, more recently Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Satya Sai Baba. They all have a very similar story - they seem to make normal people drop their lives completely to follow the leader; they often have some form of Apocalyptic world view; their followers ascribe miraculous powers to them; they live outside the law and very often come into conflict with the authorities; followers will often give their lives such is their belief in the leader etc etc...
Jesus was simply the first of these cult leaders, nothing more.
This question is addressed well in Bart Ehrman's book The Triumph of Christianity. If you type that into YouTube you can also find some good interviews summarizing the book. TLDR: unlike Judaism, Christianity actively tries to convert people. Unlike pagan religions, Christianity is exclusive, so there is a ratcheting effect as people convert and paganism lost adherents. Once Christianity reached a critical mass in the Roman Empire it became popular with the upper class. Once Emperor Konstantine converted, Christianity exploded. And the rest is history..... actually, I guess all of it is history.
Christianity as developed by St. Paul pressed the right cultural buttons at the right time, and then achieved the critical mass of getting adopted as the state religion by a world superpower (which lead to it being the state religion of a succession of world superpowers over the following 2000 years).
Divine providence or dumb luck? Well given that other religions have spread in the same way, Occams Razor suggests luck.
Incidentally, you might be interested in an alternate history novel by Kim Stanley Robinson, *The Years of Rice and Salt*. It's a good read. ;-)
>Seriously, why did Jesus (or at least the stories about him) cause such an impact in the world?
Basically the same reasons Mohammed and Buddha and Joseph Smith became famous. They were the successful few of thousands of not millions of attempts to start religions.
>But we can all agree the Jesus had the biggest presence as a religious leader so far.
Arguably Paul and Mohammed's impact are bigger.
Bart Ehrman wrote a book about it. It's not particularly surprising.
We don't know that Jesus has had the most influence. There are 3500+ years of Sumerian, Babylonian and Akkadian history we know very little about (other than that a dude got angry that his copper dealer ripped him off).
Confucius has had a tremendous influence over quite a large population of people in the far east.
Religion isn't a "mine's bigger" contest. My followers can beat up your followers.
Popularity isn't a reliable predictor of truth.
Something like this happened:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism
But due to a combination of factors, it took off.
But you also have to ask “what took off”, since there isn’t one Christianity. It’s like a fable that has spread, and had its message and interpretations take on different meanings in different places.
You know, Islam also took off, demonstrating that popularity doesn’t imply truth.
i think he was just very good at doing what he did. in the same way we know the names of ancient famous philosophers like Socrates we also know of this one dude who happened to create the most persuasive religious promises imaginable. what more could someone want than an all powerful god who loves you and will give you happiness for eternity if you just believe in him?
Jesus lived at a pivital time when the pagan Roman Empire was on its downfall, and the peoole were looking for new leadership. Plus, violence. Constantine ordered the Romam Empire be Christian in I think 381 AD and enforced it through violence.
And Christianity came after a lot of other religions. So OPs comment about religions adding Jesus etc, is non sense because Christianity it self stole form other religions. Judaism as well with the Babylonians and Sumerians etc.
I have always thought that the most surprising part of Jesus story is the fact that it didn't die with him.
Many people here will start with the premise that Christianity spread through political convenience and the sword, but that completely ignores the early years of the church.
Life in the bronze ages was brutal and hard, and the beleifs and values of bronze age people reflected that. Your community survived based on the strength of its fighting men, and if they failed the results were likely to be death, rape, and slavery.
"Toxic masculinity" wasn't a problem in bronze age cultures so much as a survival trait. Might meant right, and power was synonymous with virtue.
The most important traits of god's in these cultures was that they were powerful. If you were successful it meant the Gods favoured you: you were virtuous, and if you failed then you did so because you were worthless and the gods abandoned you. The success and power of the emperor of Rome made him a God in his own right.
The Jewish god was not really different in this regard except in that they went further, claiming he was more powerful than all other gods.
Crucifixion was a punishment designed for political prisoners. The idea was to do degrade, humiliate, and publicly display the powerlessness of the victim that it was clear how worthless they were.
Then along came Jesus. A Jewish rabi and mystic with stories that in all honesty can't have stood out that much from other mystics of the time.
He claimed to be (or at the very least have the backing of) the powerful God of the Jews. A claim that crucifixion should have utterly destroyed in the minds of his contemporaries.
You even see this in the doubts of his disciples as written in the Bible.
There is a modern myth that martyrdom is a powerful tool for creating fanatical followers, but outside of Jesus and Christianity I don't think there is any historical evidence for this.
In the minds of a bronze age people, crucifixion should have been the ultimate proof that Jesus was a fraud.
Then he got better - according to women, whose testimony would not have carried much weight at the time.
The idea that it was a story made up to gather followers is ridiculous; it is not a story that should have appealed to followers at all.
Especially as his early followers were persecuted and often killed for their beleifs.
Yet not only did people follow his teachings, but over time they became the dominant religion of Rome.
There was clearly an appeal to Christian teachings, and it had nothing to do with political convenience, conversion by the sword, or any other such nonsense.
Why did English become the dominant language on earth? I mean there have been lots of languages that different people speak, why did this language spoken by the people of some random little island come to dominate the world?
Are you seriously saying that you don't see how Christianity came to be so popular? Why do you pretend it's a mystery? It's not. And can you present a single thing about its popularity that suggests it is true?
Because he was martyred. It also allows the followers to constantly feign being oppressed. Ever notice how more than anyone else Christians, even when at the tippy top of society, LOOOOOVE playing the victim?
Crazy how all of these others religious idols all point to Jesus as a way, but Jesus points to himself as the ONLY way. And yes,, it is because Christianity is true.
Christian is not prolific because of the quality of its message, but because of the quantity of its violence.
Besides, Jesus was fictional, like Thor or Vishnu.
Why did Batman get so famous? He doesn’t have any powers. Can it be because Batman is real? Or maybe is it because the character is relatable on some levels?
Colonialism maybe? Roman Empire? Spanish conquistadors? As with many major religions, how many were converted from the edge of a sword or the barrel of a gun?
It's becasue Christ is the perfect representation of human potential; he is what we should all aspire to be even if in vain. His only weakness was his flesh. The red letters are hard to debate, even as an atheist. They just make sence, mostly becasue they share roots to other religions at their core (see Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism). Enlightenment, reincarnation, fulfillment. Makes you wonder what he was doing for those 20 some odd years before he returned to the West Bank.
It's the ways his words are delivered too. Like poetry wrapped in a riddle. It's all up for interpretation but if you really understand, it all makes sence. Love God, love others, love yourself, and don't judge others. It's so perfect in it's simplicity, and I wish his words were not tainted by humanity and organized religion.
It's important to note that there are things to learn from the other religions. They are all connected if you ask me, yet Christ's teachings are the keystone.
At the end of the day he was a human who people believed was a messiah and then he got crucified for real and at that point the story took a life on its own.
It’s the very same reason when the US killed bin Laden they dumped him in the ocean so no one could say they saw him resurrected from his burial.
Getting crucified was what made him a big deal and since his followers stole his body from the grave, which means everyone else was like whoah his body is not there therefore he resurrected! From there the story took life.
Had he died a normal death and buried like normal then he’d be another Elijah or whatever.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And as an Atheist, I wonder, why? Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? Or maybe Christianity simply hit the jackpot and got extremely famous? another example of lying for Jesus?
History suggests they're coping with depression
What?
Pretending to be an atheist because you think it'll give your apologetics more credibility, completely ignoring the fact that apologetics are not meant to convince others
Do you have compelling evidence that I'm not an Atheist? I mean, lying for the sake of "god" is a pretty contradictory thing. In the end, this would also be considered a "sin" if I was a believer. Dude, I just had a question. Maybe it sounded stupid to you, but I found it valid and decided to ask to people who I know that are much more experienced than me in this.
Could you state your definition of atheism?
Lack of belief in any god.
I just laid out the evedince, and christians belive everyone is a sinner so sin isn't realy rellevent
Because he lived right at the beginning of Pax Romana, when parchment was first invented, and was followed by a bunch of traveling doctors who acted as his missionaries. The religion they spawned was adopted by one of the most powerful empires of all time, eventually became an empire itself, and was aggressively spread across the globe, often through violent means. Rome and Christianity were foundational elements of western culture. Christianity dominated Europe for centuries, then Europe colonized many parts of the world. And monotheism was an incredibly unique and powerful innovation for theists. God loves you, has a plan for you, and will take care of you after you die. It’s an incredibly appealing dogma, on top of all the historical coincidences it benefited from. It fulfills many of man’s cognitive needs almost perfectly. 2,000 years ago, you couldn’t have designed a more appealing religion if you had tried.
Also, Christians often spread Christianity through brute force. It was forced on so many different groups of people and their own religions and cultures destroyed in order to stop the spread of "false gods." You see it in the Bible, and you see it throughout history. To clarify, I'm not saying OT stories are true, but that the religion is centered around violently spreading itself.
The fuck was that book called? *Germs, Guns, and God?* It’s been so long I can’t even remember.
'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond who also wrote other books like 'Collapse'.
I wish there was a sequel by that name. Because they really do go hand in hand.
Germs, Guns, and Steel?
This is not really accurate. [There is zero historical evidence for the existence of missionaries of the alleged jesus while we has alive. All of those stories were fabricated well after his death.](https://youtu.be/bQmMFQzrEsc?si=3ceVDZFTb6oQWqu3) Christianity proliferated because Rome amalgamated a bevy of already extant spiritual beliefs and mythologies, uniting a collection of traditions under the umbrella of Christendom. Paganism, Sumerian / Babylonian mythology, etc…christianity is a hodgepodge. TL;DR…even the alleged historical jesus wasn’t a notable figure in any way, shape, or form. There were no followers of (or believers in) jesus while he was alive. All of the stories were invented afterwards and then spread by the Romans through conquest.
It goes even further. There doesn't even need to be an actual Jesus for Christianity to be successful. There just needs to be someone who *claims* there's an actual Jesus. There is a good argument that the first Christian, probably Peter, had a "revelation" of Jesus found in "divinely inspired" pesher readings of scripture. His Jesus was a pre-existing angel incarnated in the flesh and in the realm of the Earth but not on the Earth, rather in the firmament, where he was killed by Satan and his demons, who didn't realize who he was, and buried there to be resurrected and ascend back into the upper heavens. His death and resurrection open the pathway to everlasting life and salvation from sin. There are pretty strong hints of this theology in the writings of Paul and it was at least as likely as not the original doctrine. This was what was preached by Peter until he found another Jew who found his revelation convincing, who convinced another, who convinced another, who convinced Paul, who convinced another, so forth and so on. There's nothing extraordinary about this. It's how new cults spread. It's also exactly the same salvation pathway that modern Christianity espouses: believing the death and resurrection of Jesus save you is the way. It was just revised by gospel writers into a historical fiction that was easier for the common folk to buy into and the original, more abstract celestial beginnings were lost in the early disorganized development of the church.
I find very interesting that Romans have the custom of learning their oponentes best warfare skill and beating them at it, and the best warfare skill of Jews was getting ideas from other religions and integrating them on their own religion while improving on them.
Roman Empire adopted Christianity? Pretty sure that the Roman Empire persecuted Christians for 1st three centuries of Christianity’s existence
The roman empire mostly coexisted fine with christians with the exception of a a few select rulers and the odd few decades here and there. The idea that the roman empire was trying to stamp out christianity for centuries is largely a myth. It was much more hostile to jews, which is one likely reason Christians sought to differentiate themselves. Then yes, early into 300s Rome adopted christianity as the official religion, spread it across europe, which then spread it across the globe.
Maybe getting crucified or fed to lions is considered “coexisted fine” to you, but others might disagree.
They persecuted every person who didn't say that the emperor was a god. Christianity wasn't special Then Constantine determined that claiming to be one of many gods wasn't nearly as effective as being the one and only God's chosen ruler of everything It was so effective, for over 1000 years the entirety of Europe lived in poverty, disease, famine, war, slavery, and illiteracy under a religious dictatorship. Everyone except the Monarchy and Clergy died before they turned 35 if they even survived infancy Isn't it weird that the entire time Christianity was at its absolute height, the entire continent lived under dictatorship? As soon as Religious Dictatorship was overthrown, life expectancy doubled and science brought us germ theory instead of angering God
>Everyone except the Monarchy and Clergy died before they turned 35 if they even survived infancy I just want to correct this bit. Average life expectancy is calculated as the average expected life span from birth. It is extremely skewed by infant and child mortality rates. The reason life expectancy was so low back then was because babies died a lot. Those who survived till their teenage years normally lived for 70+ years.
Actually 35 already removes infant (<1 year) mortality (though I'm not sure why that's better) 35 does include the clergy and aristocracy which is where you find your old agers. But again, it doesn't really mean much to say people who survived til 80 normally lived for 80+ years. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life\_expectancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)
>Actually 35 already removes infant (<1 year) mortality Ah. I didn't notice that. Still, child mortality rates are not removed and they also extremely reduce the average expected life span. >(though I'm not sure why that's better) It's better because of how averages work. Averages get heavily skewed by extreme values. For example, take this number sequence. 1, 1, 6, 9, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60. In this sequence, 60 is both the mode (most common value) and the median (middle-most value) but the average is 37.7 because the extreme numbers skew it. Remove the 1s and the sequence becomes 6, 9, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60. The mode and median are still 60 but the average now jumps to 46.875. Because the extreme value of 1 got removed. On a similar vein, average life expectancy gets skewed to be much lower because of infant mortality and child mortality. If you survive to teenage, you were very likely to live till your 60s in the medieval period.
>It's better because of how averages work I understand why it's better for making the average what you're looking to make it I don't understand why it's ok to ignore children dying. Yeah it's a lot. And that's bad. Some might say, worse, even Again, you could make the life expectancy 75 if you just removed all of the poor, starving, and cannon fodder people. Problem is, that's \~100% of the population You have to make the cutoff somewhere >If you survive to teenage, you were very likely to live till your 60s in the medieval period. Quotes from the wikipedia entry: [Early Middle Ages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages) - A Gaulish boy surviving to age 20 might expect to live 25 more years, while a woman at age 20 could normally expect about 17 more years [Late medieval English peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_in_the_Middle_Ages) - Life expectancy at age 10 reached 32.2 remaining years These are not "likely to live till your 60s"
Agnes of Rome was martyred for not marrying a governor’s son. Not for denying the memoir or was God. That’s an over-generalisation. As for the rest of your comment, that’s quite the abomination of history you vomit onto this chat. In this 1000 years of legalised Christianity you have the first public education, hospitals, and development of science. Wars? Yeah, cuz life was so peaceful before Christianity. Wow.
Who said anything about Agnes of Rome? You seriously thought I was referring to a single instance of heresy? What do you think inquisitions were? >1000 years of legalised Christianity Hahahaha, dude, Christianity was the law. That's how heresy becomes punishable by death >the first public education, hospitals, and development of science Only if you don't know anything about any part of history other than that Christianity just has to be the best Here's life expectancy for the 1500 years Christianity ruled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life\_expectancy#Variation\_over\_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time) Here's a chart of the time right after the American and French Revolutions: [https://humanprogress.org/trends/life-expectancy-is-rising/](https://humanprogress.org/trends/life-expectancy-is-rising/) Quote: *That increase was largely a consequence of better nutrition and deployment of public health measures, such as filtered water and sewers* You know, sewers like ancient Greece and Rome had. Instead of believing disease was caused by demons. Instead of throwing their waste out the window and their plague victims into the rivers they drank from. Part of the Enlightenment, when ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, discourse, art, architecture, and governance reemerged and triggered the violent overthrow of Religious Dictatorship. Here is the Catholic church trying to stifle science to the very end: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo\_Galilei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei) Here is how disproportionate the Monarchy and Clergy granted themselves power relative to everyone else, even on the verge of violent rebellion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates\_General\_of\_1789](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_General_of_1789)
Agnes of Rome was just an example of how martyrdom went beyond just admitting to false gods. It is true that many European nations made adopted Christian laws to be their own. That's when the state controlled the laws, not the Church. The inquisitions were state run, not Church run. As for life expectancy, Christianity alone offers eternal life, so that's awesome. But let's talk about life on earth. So what of your argument? The whole world was ignorant of pathogenesis, of course. So what of Greece and Rome had aqueducts? Did Christians do away with the aqueducts and sewer systems? As for Galileo, the Catholic Church defended science. Galileo couldn't prove his theory. In fact, it was proven till hundreds years later. Galileo also thought comets were optical illusions. Galileo was put on house arrest by the Pope, who happened to be a former friend of Galileo. He was put on house arrest because Galileo insulted the Pope. That's what you call "stifling science to the every end"? Doubtful. Stifling science to the very end is what the John Money Institute does in modern America, just so you know what stifling science means. I'll get to "Estates of General" later. I can't wait to see where your'e going with that one.
Hahahaha, oh man. Your desperate reaching for excuses is just demonstrative of how much Kool aid you've been drinking Nations "adopted" Christianity. War, inquisition, oppression, and everything else bad came from the state, and the church was all about questioning whether the earth was the center of the universe. You really don't need to say anything more. We know the basic level of thought you're operating at >Christianity alone offers eternal life, so that's awesome No, it doesn't "offer". It "promises". You know how making promises on behalf of someone else works so good all the time... Yeah, question about the eternal life... Pretty much makes this life pointless, right? God knows who will earn enough Jesus Bucks for eternal life already. So God is creating the other people... to watch them suffer? Also you must be pro choice, right? The person having the abortion goes to hell like they deserve and the baby goes straight to eternal paradise immediately. It's perfect >Did Christians do away with the aqueducts and sewer systems? Yes And, they threw their waste out of their windows and disposed of plague victims in the same rivers they drank from The original Bible was very likely covered in human feces >Galileo couldn't prove his theory That's why all of his works were banned. Not just the Copernican model works >He was put on house arrest because Galileo insulted the Pope Pure idiocy. There was a trial for heresy because of an insult. And I thought you said the church didn't control the laws >what the John Money Institute does in modern America, just so you know what stifling science means. Plenty of people are stifling science today. You really don't know what an argument is, do you... >"Estates of General" Yeah, a short lived governing body, meant to appease the starving masses. The Monarchy got one vote, the clergy got one vote, and then everyone else got one vote Sorry man, you are clearly way too far gone. You have near zero knowledge or understanding of history. And the history you think you know, you've rewritten or it has been rewritten for you. *Galileo insulted the Pope, and so the Pope, who was his friend and also had no legal authority, arrested him and tried him for heresy. He was only sentenced to exile instead of death. And all of his writings were banned. Not because he argued for the earth not being the center of the universe. But because he insulted his friend. All of this coming after 1000 years of the church being supportive of science and the state executing people for heresy. And right before the people violently overthrew the monarchy and the clergy*
Wait till you learn about a guy called Emperor Constantine
Yeah, the guy who finally legalised Christianity after three centuries. Like I said.
Hah adorable. No he did a hell of a lot more than just "legalize" it (and he wasn't even the one who did that part, it was his predecessor who legalized it). Constantine practically adopted it as the official state religion of Rome (something his successor would do officially), and started the process of conversion or syncretization of the existing Roman religious traditions to it, and even eventually encouraged the pillaging and destruction of Roman temples and forced suppression of competing religions. He had churches and basilicas built to replace them and started elevating members of the clergy to high ranking official state positions. He also called for the first council of Nicea to reconcile various disputes and discrepancies within the then fairly splintered and factionalized religion (not that Christianity has ever been completely unified, but between Constantine and the Great Schism there were a lot fewer competing interpretations or denominations) and work towards establishing an official canon. He also made it the symbol under which he would conquer, and forced adoption of it on those he defeated as a means of pacifying them (various messages emphasizing pacifism and obedience like "blessed are the meek" or "turn the other cheek", or "render unto Caesar" were very useful for this purpose). A tradition you may notice continued for centuries through European colonialism. The role Constantine had in shaping and growing the popularity and influence of early Christianity is difficult to overstate.
Constantine didn’t even become Christian tip his deathbed. He allied with Christian for political gain, which you allude to in your comment. My issue with OP is that he contributes Christianity’s 2000 years of success to 150 years of Roman support, after Christianity was persecuted by that same Roman Empire for twice as long.
>Constantine didn’t even become Christian tip his deathbed. He allied with Christian for political gain, which you allude to in your comment Think about that for just a minute. So you're acknowledging that the guy who had a huge influence on the shaping and spreading of early Christianity didn't even necessarily need to believe any of it himself at the time. So a huge factor in the adoption and spread of Christianity has nothing to do with the merits or validity of the belief system itself, and more the political utility it served for those who stood to gain from adopting, spreading, and enforcing it. Whether he believed any of it or not is basically irrelevant to the influence he had on it, which is part of the whole point. >My issue with OP is that he contributes Christianity’s 2000 years of success to 150 years of Roman support, after Christianity was persecuted by that same Roman Empire for twice as long. I don't know if you know this, but the Roman empire was a pretty big deal at the time, and the influence it had on shaping Europe didn't exactly just cease to exist 150 years later, and it certainly didn't just stop being Christian (not even to mention the Eastern Roman Empire, which would persist for much longer and was also officially Christian). You know there's an actual reason why the Vatican is in Rome right, that's not just a weird coincidence, or why it's called the Roman Catholic Church? It set the stage for Christianity to become the dominant religion in Europe and subsequent spread throughout the world. It marks the turning point from being elevated from a relatively minor and persecuted regional religion to a global power. The subsequent European monarchies that arose in the wake of the Western Roman Empire after it dissolved didn't abandon the Christianity they inherited from it, and they almost certainly wouldn't have had it so inextricably tied to their concept of legitimizing their monarchical power to begin with if not for Rome's official adoption of it. The idea that kings must be ordained by bishops and only popes could ordain emperors came out of Rome's influence, which all started with Constantine.
If you don't know that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity then I really don't know what to say besides you don't know enough about history to comment.
Nothing I said was false. In spite of persecution Christianity spread like wild fire without Rome’s support. Only after 300 years did Rome legalise it, and eventually decided to ally with Christianity, because it was impossible to eradicate.
And yet despite your comment, they DID adopt Christianity and eventually forced the faith on other people and led it to become the dominant faith in its territories.
Are you not aware of the fact that it eventually became the state religion of Rome? It wasn’t called The Holy Fuck All Empire. It was the Holy Roman Empire. As in, the Roman Empire eventually became the Holy Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation are two different things. There were a few centuries between the fall of the western Roman Empire and the declaration of the Holy Roman Empire.
Nevertheless, Rome spent 300 years persecuting Christians. Its disingenuous to say Rome backed up Christianity and helped promulgate it. Christianity survived the persecution, Rome finally allowed Christianity after 300 years, and now we give Rome credit for its success? Nah.
Emperor Constantine
Yeah. After 3 centuries because Christianity spread without Romes support and was impossible to suppress.
1. Moving the goalposts. You questioned whether the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. It did. 2. You'd most likely never have heard of Christianity if not for Constantine. There were countless Jewish and Christian sects, fighting against each other and the authorities for influence. Almost all lost in history's dustbin. 3. "Impossible to suppress". Rome's persecution is overstated by apologists. It was for the most part sporadic and localized. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_Christians\_in\_the\_Roman\_Empire#](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire#)
Many comments are saying that Rome is what promulgated the spread of Christianity. Rome tortured to death the founder of Christianity. Then tortured to death 12 of the 13 apostles of that founder. The first 33 popes were either tortured to death or murdered. Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years, then supported Christians for 150, then fell. Rome helped in that 150 years spread Christianity, but by no means did Christianity hinge on Romes support. Every follower of Christianity for the first 300 years knew that torture and death likely awaited them if they became Christian, but Christianity still grew and grew. There is something far deeper to Christianity's success than government support which didn't exist for 300 years.
"Then tortured to death 12 of the 13 apostles of that founder." Didn't happen. "Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years" As pointed out, the persecution was sporadic and local. Check the Wikipedia article. You're just really overstating the headwinds they faced.
Torturing to death or murdering every leader of the Christian Church for 1st 300 years is systematic, not "sporadic". Torturing and killing every Christian they found, feeding them to lions, forcing them to be burned, etc,...was systematic. Anyone can edit your wiki link, even me. If you want to source, then look at the historians of that period between 33-300AD.
You're completely wrong about the fate of the apostles. So everything you assert is suspect. You don't know the history.
Most of these were finally recorded in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Writing really took off in this period. Much of the information came from Eusebius, Jerome and Origen. Leading up to that time frame information was passed by oral tradition, except in in cases of the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Josephus. 1) James the Greater was killed by King Herod Agrippa 2) James the Lesser was stoned to death in Jerusalem 3) Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. That's not really disputed by anyone. 4) Thomas is uncertain, but tradition in India states that he was martyred there by a spear. 5) 3rd century Hyppolytus writes that Bartholomew was flayed alive. Interesting fact, in Bosnia in 1990's a Catholic priest was flayed alive, so the martyrdom continues to this day. I met that priest's friend who had pictures of the atrocity. The picture depicted a man's face without skin. I was in highschool at the time. The friend told me that the martyr was still alive at the time of the picture taken by communists. Another priest was burned alive but no picture. To avoid being flayed and burned alive, all the priest had to do was apostatize. The one burned was in a wheel chair at the time. 6) St. Andrew was crucified in 60 AD by Roman Governor, Aegeas in Achaia (Near Gulf of Corinth). This was during the reign of Nero, one of the worst Christian persecutors. 7) Phillip's death is uncertain. There are two traditions that don't date prior to 3rd century AD. One is that he died of natural causes. The other is that he was crucified in Hierapolis. 8) Matthew's fate is contradicted by various writes of the 3rd century. He has been reported as being burned, stoned, beheaded, or stabbed. 9) Matthias (replaced Judas) was either hacked to death or crucified. 10) Simon the Zealot was crucified at Edessa in 67 AD. 11) Jude was martyred by being clubbed to death in modern day Iran. 12) Paul was beheaded for his faith.
What do you think happened after those three centuries?
Constantine legalised it. Rome fell 150 years later. So Christianity existed 2000 years and we’re going to chalk up its success to 150 years of support from a regime that spent twice that time persecuting it? Let’s be real.
I think most people would indeed say that becoming the state religion of the largest empire in the world was the turning point for Christianity's success. Part of the reason Rome fell is precisely because people in it no longer held to Roman religion and culture.
Jesus’ resurrection was the turning point. Rome helped Christianity, but the life of Christianity did not hinge on Rome. Anyone who legalised Christianity or promulgates it is helping Christianity, whether it be a peasant or a king. But the fact the Christianity grew under Roman suppression for 300 years proves that it did not depend on Rome
First, the premise of your question fundamentally misunderstands Christianity's history. You assume that Christianity is some sort of static teaching derived from a real person named Jesus Christ, when in fact it was an evolving religion which was -- and is -- *constantly adapting* to the times. It's not magic, it's not even luck. It's *evolution*. Christianity has very little to do with the actual life of Jesus or his teachings. The elements of the New Testament that are the actual teachings of Jesus are extraordinarily scant. Only a handful of sayings can actually be attributed him. The form of Christianity closest to what Jesus actually taught -- the Jewish Christians descending from the ministry of James the brother of Jesus -- died out very early (in the 2nd century). So in a sense you can say that the Christianity of Jesus himself lasted less than a century. Then it gets hijacked by Paul, who never even heard Jesus speak, and who teaches a completely different Christianity with lots of influences from Greco-Roman sources. Later Christians continue to weld more and more Roman and Neoplatonic elements to it, until they finally luck out with the conversion of Constantine. If there was any stroke of luck in the Christian story, it was that. That and the arrow that killed Julian. But no, it's mostly not luck, it's adaptation. Christianity changes its story every time history asks it to do so. It's putty.
>Then it gets hijacked by Paul, who never even heard Jesus speak, and who teaches a completely different Christianity with lots of influences from Greco-Roman sources And Paul himself seems to openly disagree with the Jewish Christians at the time. He even says in Galatians that anyone who tries to say converts must be circumcized, well, such a man ought to chop his dick off. That's in the Bible. Paul changed everything and Christianity is really more of a Paul religion than a Jesus one. If you take away Paul, I think Christianity dies within a generation or two as just another radical sect of second temple Judaism.
I thought Paul was against circumcision! He says it a few times and Paul is actually very anti Semitic. Having said all that, I agree that Christie as we know today, is Pauline Christianity!
Yes, Paul says in Galatians that circumcision is not a requirement. That's what I was trying to say but it came out wrong. He goes on to say "anyone who tells you that you MUST be circumcized should just slice their own dong off".
Ok ok. Lol slice their dong off!! 😂😂🤣
It's wild but yeah Paul really says this in Galatians. He was a bit of a wild card sometimes. "I met with Cephas and James in Jerusalem, and they added nothing to me" He's basically saying "yeah I met with those guys but they didn't tell me anything I didn't hear directly from Jesus himself, and let's remember, Jesus may have talked to those guys after he rose, but he made a special trip back from Heaven to share the gospel directly with me, so, I mean, who is the real authority here? Me or them?"
True true! I have read the Bible a few times. It’s interesting to note how different Paul was. When I was in a Christian family, we chalked it up to@yes their inspired” but they weren’t robots, and “God” allowed then time express their personalities and free will to tell different aspect of the story while still maintaining the basis. Now as an atheist, it’s more probable that, since we know the epistles came first, that Christianity had a source with the Greeks, a”Logos” source. Over time, they were various people who had disciples , John the Baptist” disciples were different from Jesus disciples and they’re was a “dispute” among them, and Paul had his own views. Not inspired at all if you look at it now in hindsight and through the lens of historians like Bart Erhman etc. clearly in the bi or itself, you can see power struggles, different groups of disciples all battling for supremacy and with different views!
> I thought Paul was against circumcision! He says it a few times and Paul is actually very anti Semitic. No, he just doesn't think it is necessary for gentile christians to become jewish before becoming followers of Jesus. So it isn't that he thinks circumcision is wrong, just that that is part of what it means to be a Jew not a Christian. So Jewish converts to Christianity should be circumcised and keep the law. And can also follow Jesus. And Gentile converts don't need to be circumcised and follow all the mosaic laws. And can also follow Jesus.
Got it!! Thanks!
And Paul was really just overly concerned with what people did with their foreskin so really it’s more of a weiner religion than a Jesus one.
Telling a man to cut the end of his dick off does not make for easy conversion to "the truth".
Because the moral evolutions of the time made the stories written about him useful to the powerful. A proselytising religion that says to obey your earthly masters was very useful to the kind of narcissists who made it the official religion of the Roman empire at the same time they worked to twist the image of the first Roman emperor to promote tolerance of Christianity into an irredeemable villain. Also Judaism only refers to Christ as a false prophet in the same way as Christianity does about Mohammed. I don't know why you're being deliberately deceptive but it doesn't help your cause pretending to be an atheist.
>And as an Atheist, I wonder, why? Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? Or maybe Christianity simply hit the jackpot and got extremely famous? As an "atheist", you should realize that fame and popularity do not make something true. Can you think of other examples of people that became famous? I can. I don't think that makes them gods.
>Why did Jesus get so famous? Same reason Hercules is famous: People like to tell stories. Achilles, Batman, Catwoman, Destro, Eros, Superman, ....et al are all famous because the stories get told, used, retold, embellished, spread around. Generally for entertainment and providing a bedrock for moral teachings, at times. Plus, it was rather profitable to tell stories when there were no TVs and radios available, about 2000 years ago. Make up stories, delude the people, fleece the sheep.
If you want to understand this on a realistic, non-theological level, read up on some history about it. The Triumph Of Christianity by Bart Ehrman is a great overview of it. Put in a slightly snappier way, whatever religion happens to be practiced by the region of the world that conquers/colonizes everywhere else is gonna be the biggest religion.
This is a great book, and it pretty much is written as the answer to the OP's question. There are a lot of interconnected reasons, but I suspect the largest one is that Christianity both proselytized and demanded exclusivity.
There will always be somone who became the most famous. Also your claim about Buddhism recognizing Jesus is mostly false.
There’s a lot of reason Christianity became dominant, but think about how easy it is to get into heaven in Christianity…you just gotta accept this dude. If you study pure land Buddhism, you’ll see similar features. So you have people who are not guaranteed a good afterlife (or one at all) being offered eternal joy for accepting some dead guy as your lord and saviour? Sounds easy enough…
"think about how easy it is to get into heaven in Christianity…you just gotta accept this dude" This is a straw man if I've ever seen one. The Bible does not say accepting Christ is easy. Matthew 7 13:14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
>This is a straw man if I've ever seen one. The Bible does not say accepting Christ is easy. He didn't say that the Bible said that accepting Christ is easy, he said that getting into heaven within Christianity was easy, and could be done by accepting Christ. Before Christianity do you know how you got into the heaven of the Abrahamic God? By being Jewish. For a non jew, Christianity is a much easier way to get into heaven. Converting to Christianity is far easier than converting to Judaism.
I don’t care what the bible says for this argument. I’m just assessing the requirements. Have faith. Accept Jesus as lord and saviour. There are plenty of traditions that focus on the universalist aspects of Christianity and that it’s by grace that people are saved. Just cause you’re cherry pick a line that says it’s hard to be a Christian doesn’t mean it actually is. I’m capable of making the assessment myself and so are others.
>And as an Atheist, I wonder, why? Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? Or maybe Christianity simply hit the jackpot and got extremely famous? Its because Western civilization conquered more of the world than other civilizations, and they imposed Christianity wherever they went. This question is like asking if English is "true" or something based on the fact that its the most common official language in the world. Both cultural artifacts were essentially spread through conquest.
>Why did Jesus get so famous? Political pressure and luck of the draw combined with people's propensity for superstition and memes. >Seriously, why did Jesus (or at least the stories about him) cause such an impact in the world? There have been many gods and different faiths throghout human history. Some of them has surely made a certain impact, like Mohammad (Islam) or Buddha (Buddhism). Different mythologies become more or less prevalent in different places and different times due to all kinds of variables. >But we can all agree the Jesus had the biggest presence as a religious leader so far. Hahah, no we can't. Muslims certainly wouldn't. Neither would Buddhists. Nor atheists. >The question is, why? Why did he become so famous at the point that other religions adapted him into their beliefs? Learn a bit if the history of the development and evolution of religious mythologies and you'll see why other mythologies may (or may not) have that character in them, and vice versa. >And as an Atheist, I wonder, why? My skeptical sense is tingling >Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? No, that does not follow and is, of course, an ad populum fallacy.
Fwiw - Buddhists don’t think Jesus reached *nirvana*. Nothing in the gospel accounts would suggest that, and it certainly isn’t a claim I’ve heard any Buddhists say outside of some new agey “all paths lead to the same heaven” type of thinker.
Exactly the same reason as why any other historical figure became immortalized: a bunch of people told stories about him in the decades after he died; some of these were written down. There’s really nothing special or unique about Jesus in regards to this. The stories spawned a relatively small cult that remained small for a few centuries. Then 300 years later this religion was adopted as the official state religion of Rome. This led to it being spread throughout the world at the time. The important thing is, Jesus really had almost nothing to do with it. He could have been a total fabrication, and as long as the stories were told and written down everything else would have proceeded exactly as it did.
The popularity of Jesus also did a lot of harm. Look at the crusades, Johnstown, Waco, and what happened to the Native American Indians when Christianity arrived in North America to name a few tragedies. I don’t desire to be popular. I’m happy to just be who I am, ordinary, nothing special, but generally happy healthy and successful in life. But if I were to become famous, I would rather it be in something based on reality like making a new discovery about chemistry, physics, biology or astronomy. A discovery that could measurably improve the quality of life for many with as few drawbacks as possible. I wouldn’t want to be known as the king of an imaginary hill.
Why did people wait nearly a century after his death to start writing about him? Were they busy doing laundry? And Christianity is just repackaged paganism... So does that make paganism true?
Well said! Why wait a century if these things were true?
Massive, horrific crimes against humanity that dwarf anything done by anyone else. So, as much as we value pure reason here, turns out it's pretty hard to counter "say I'm right or I'll break your kneecaps". Christianity was a local religion, limited to Europe and parts of Asia, until colonialism happened. Turns out nothing spreads your religion faster then showing up everywhere in the world and slaughtering everyone there until they claim to be Christians. Christianity's success is, ironically, one of the biggest black marks on it. How successful would Christianity be on its own merits? We'll never know. The vast majority of converts to Christians throughout history did so with a metaphorical, and sometimes very literal, gun to their head.
Why did Allah or Vishnu or Shiva or Mithra or Baal or any of the other gods get so popular? Because people are gullible and comforting stories that promise eternal afterlife sell very well to credulous and gullible and vulnerable and irrational people. Also, and not nearly secondary to the first point, Christianity was spread by the sword for a very long time, and until comparatively very recently in human history, the strangle hold that religion (namely Christianity) once had was dissolved by secularism and the enlightenment, thank goodness and science. One could be burned at the stake for owning a Bible in English, let alone professing atheism or engaging in other heretical behavior, for which there were many many examples.
Because you're looking at it from the lens of today. If you were born 2000 years ago, you wouldn't have heard of him. People born 2000 years from now may not think of Jahweh's zombie as anything more than Hades or Zeus.
Hinduism portraying Jesus as one of their gods ? This never happened. Buddhism saying that he reached Nirvana - also false. Though some say he may have reached Nirvana according to his general portrayal. About why did it last so long ? You gotta study the history of the catholic church for that answer. Judaism doesn't accept him as their Messiah even when they came first. About Islam accepting him as a prophet, they both are Abrahamic religions, and the acceptance vould be a diplomatic move to convert people. I realise thay you haven't studied other factors and are presenting this argument based on ab argument you probably have heard.
I would be interested why you think Hinduism never adopted Jesus? Around 15 years ago I travelled in Hindu areas of India and was told repeatedly that Jesus had a place in Hinduism. I have also been told by numerous Buddhist that Jesus was a bodhisatva.
I was a Hindu muself with Buddhist friends. Bodhisattva means someone who walks on the path of bodhi. The rough claims about Jesus make him seem like a bodhisattva. And, no there is no mention of Jesus in hinduism, except for mention by corrupt politicians and cult leaders who are looking to broaden their following. I also study comparative mythology as a hobby, so I would have some knowledge if it actually happened. Edit : spelling mistakes.
>Seriously, why did Jesus (or at least the stories about him) cause such an impact in the world? For one, it probably helps being made the state religion at the height of the Roman Empire. And then there's annexing other religion's stories, rituals and festivities (see below) >But we can all agree the Jesus had the biggest presence as a religious leader so far No we don't. Ask any Buddhist or Muslim and they'll very likely have a different opinion. >Like Hinduism, representing Jesus as one of the gods So just like Christianity annexing other religion's rituals and festivities: * The celebration of Christmas on December 25th, marking the birth of Jesus Christ, is taken from pre-Christian winter solstice festivals. The date was chosen to coincide with pagan festivals such as Saturnalia in Rome and Yule in Germanic traditions, which celebrated the rebirth of the sun and the return of light during the darkest time of the year. If you look at the Gospels, we know that Jesus wasn't born in December.: * In the Gospel of Luke, it is mentioned that shepherds were in the fields at the time of Jesus' birth, keeping watch over their flocks by night (Luke 2:8). In the region of Bethlehem, where Jesus was believed to have been born, the weather during December would typically be too cold for shepherds to be out with their flocks at night. This clearly indicates that Jesus' birth may have occurred during a warmer season, such as spring or summer. * The Gospel of Luke also mentions that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem for a census decreed by Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1-5). Now of course, such a census never took place. But historically, Roman censuses were not conducted during the winter months due to the difficulties of travel and inclement weather. It is more likely that a census would have been conducted during a more favorable season, again pointing away from December as the time of Jesus' birth. * The Christian holiday of Easter, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, coincides with the celebration of spring fertility festivals in many cultures. The timing of Easter, which falls near the vernal equinox, shares similarities with ancient pagan festivals honoring fertility deities and the renewal of life. * The Christian observance of All Saints' Day on November 1st, honoring saints and martyrs, may have been influenced by ancient Celtic festivals such as Samhain, which marked the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter. Halloween, celebrated on the evening before All Saints' Day, incorporates elements of Celtic and Gaelic traditions, including costumes, bonfires, and the belief in spirits roaming the earth. * Saint Brigid's Day, celebrated on February 1st in honor of Saint Brigid of Kildare, coincides with the Celtic festival of Imbolc, which marked the beginning of spring and the lactation of ewes. Many customs associated with Saint Brigid's Day, such as making Brigid's crosses and lighting candles, have parallels with ancient pagan rituals.
Glycon got more famous and did it quicker. Jesus was very like the pagan religions that the Greeks were familiar with and being a Jew, he was exotic enough to intrigue them. He attracted self appointed priests, Glycon died out when his one inventor died. No one else took up the banner.
Christianity started in a particular place at a particular time, and was able to spread throughout the Roman Empire. It had a message that was attractive, and unlike the religion prevalent in the empire, was exclusive—a gain for Christianity was a loss for paganism. Its average growth rate until Constantine was probably roughly the same as that of Mormonism since its inception. But Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the empire, and then it really took off—Christians achieved secular power and Christianity was the place to be if you wanted to get ahead. And so Jesus, as Christianity’s object of reverence and worship, became well-known. As you pointed out, Mohammed and the Buddha are major figures too, but if you happen to live in a nation with a Christian heritage, Jesus will be more prominent. In other cultures, perhaps not so much. And of course, in a world where religions compete for power, just as in the business world, you see that a few achieve massive status, while others trail behind; Christianity happened to be the dominant religion of Europe during its colonial period, and one of its major exports, which helped fuel its spread. Now, it looks like Islam is set to outstrip Christianity in a few decades.
Right place, right time, otherwise Jesus was just another charismatic schizophrenic who managed to convince a few of the locals His hallucinations were real.
This is the sort of question that gets downvoted (and never answered) in r/AskHistorians. It’s a fundamentally unanswerable question because it comes down to “why did history happen.” Dumb luck, I guess. Probably lots of killing too. I’ll answer one answerable bit. Jews did not incorporate Jesus into their beliefs. If you push a Jew on the question, they might point out that two thousand years ago there were various traditions of proofs of the restoration of the Davidic line, but that Jesus didn’t meet them. Given that “messiah” just means “anointed king” in Hebrew and absolutely not “incarnation of a deity,” I think we can pretty much establish that a historic Jesus didn’t topple the Roman government of Judea and restore the Davidic line. If you’re an honest atheist and not a Christian troll pretending to be one, then the answer would be that various forces found Christianity politically useful.
People fail to understand that the gospels are essentially fiction written 40-130 years after Jesus’ death. Jesus in real life was probably nowhere near as popular as the gospels claim he was. He might not have even been a real person, but even if he was, he probably didn’t have that large of a following. Jesus got famous because the author of the gospel of Mark wrote a good story. Judaism was forced to reform after the Romans destroyed Judea and the Jewish temple in the year 70. Mark was a reaction to the destruction of the temple and gave Jewish communities a new theology for a post temple world. The real reason Jesus is famous is the same reason Mohammed is famous. The Roman emperors promoted Christianity. Otherwise it’d probably just be another Jewish sect. It takes a political leader like a king to make religion popular.
>Can it be that it's because Christianity is true? No, it's because the Romans are dorks. Specifically, Emperor Constantine who turned it into the state religion. Afterwards, Rome marched across the rest of Europe, Asia, and everywhere else spreading the word of God at the tip of a sword destroying cultures and languages everywhere they went. And then their bastard offspring Spain, Italy, and Britain continued the tradition of "Christ and/or Genocide." All because one emperor decided to dick up everything for everyone else for all time. Had it not been for him, Christianity would have stayed a fringe cult, there'd be no Catholic church, no papal states, and it would be entirely debatable as to whether entire wars would have been fought and *had* they still be fought, it's unlikely "the wrong religion" would have been a factor.
[удалено]
When it is canon for apostates to be executed, popularity is more of a side effect of not wanting to be eradicated.
Novelty. Judaism grew in popularity in the Roman world along with the other religions from around the empire. Greek mystery religions spread wherever the empire went. Isis/Osiris, Romulus, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Dionysos, Demeter, and Persephone. All demigods/children of gods, who overcome death, and through faith in them you too can achieve everlasting life. All popular in the Roman Empire. Along comes a cult that takes the already popular and novel religion of Judaism and revolutionizes it with even better rules. It's now easier than ever to survive death. So slowly over a few hundred years it gains enough popularity to get a Roman emperor in its ranks. Once an emperor makes it the official religion of the empire, it's forced upon the empire. Since the empire is basically everywhere, everyone becomes Christian.
One important factor is that Christianity was different from most religions that it competed with at the time of its founding in two specific ways: Exclusivity. If you became a Christian, you were expected to give up your ties to any other worship practice. Judaism is the only other religion at the time for which that was true. So all growth in Christianity was accompanied by decline of other religions. The cumulative effect over several generations was significant. Evangelism. Christians sought converts. The pagan religions around at the time didn't really do that. They didn't care what you believed. Even the Jews didn't really proselytize. So in comparison to the other religions in the first centuries after Jesus, Christianity was kind of like the Borg.
Buddhism had more than a certain impact. At one point it was everywhere south and east asia. But for Christianity, the answer is the Roman empire. Christianity became the official religion of the principal political unit of the west. After the western roman empire fell, the Church's network of administration and its collection of educated priests made it very useful for later monarchs - Charlemagne, the Saxon monarchs and so Christianity kept its political dominance in Europe. Then when Europe went to the new world, Christianity went and there it was once again imposed by the sword. When Europe colonized Africa, Christianity went there as well. Look at a world map. All the main Christian areas are either Europe, or old European colonies.
Jesus didn't get famous with his contemporaries. There are no contemporary historical accounts of him AT ALL. Josephus and Tacitus briefly mention him, in the context of his followers, some 60-80 years after his supposed lifetime. The earliest gospel, Mark, was most probably written around 70 AD. Christianity started transitioning from a fringe cult to the state religion when Roman emperor Constantine formally converted around 312 AD. The reasons for his conversions are unclear (there is a legend he had a vision before a battle), but the facts are that he believed in the unity of church and state (meaning a monotheistic religion would have suited him), and his mother was a Christian. So yes, FELLOW ATHEIST, it was simply a jackpot.
I see way too many comments that say that Rome spread Christianity. Rome tortured to death the founder of Christianity. Then tortured to death 12 of the 13 apostles of that founder. The first 33 popes were either tortured to death or murdered. Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years, then finally supported Christians for 150, then fell. Rome helped in that 150 years spread Christianity, but by no means did Christianity hinge on Romes support. Every follower of Christianity for the first 300 years knew that torture and death likely awaited them if they became Christian, but Christianity still grew and grew. There is something far deeper to Christianity's success than government support which didn't exist for the first 300 years.
Technological improvements. Travel became easier, news spreads faster… Additionally, Christianity is unique in a way. Christianity is rare in that it would rather convert you than kill you 9 out of 10 times. It’s more willing to accept parts of other cultures and integrate with them than it is to just wipe them out. Look at all the traditions that Christianity has that were essentially stolen/adopted from other religion. Christmas Trees… a pagan practice Christmas in general… Saturnalia Easter… another pagan ritual Noah’s flood… Epic of Gilgamesh Because Christianity is more willing to adopt other cultures and practices it’s easier for it to spread. Other religions general kill young you don’t agree.
Jesus became do famous cause his ideas sound convincing for his not-so-smart contemporaries. Furthermore, powerful christians pushed on really hard on propagating his personality and his ideas. Paul apostle knew that strictly Jewish Orthodox movement (Early Christianity) isn't gonna be very popular, so he made a marketing decision by making it more liberal and allowed other nations to join. Jesus claimed that you should perform a long list of beliefs and deeds to be saved for eternal. Paul simplified and said belief in Jesus as Messiah is enough. Emperor Constantine essentially spread out Christianity to the whole world. For almost two millenias ultraaggressive christian marketing is taking place.
There have been regularly throughout history what we call "cult leaders". Appolonis of Tyana, Sabbatai Zevi, more recently Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Satya Sai Baba. They all have a very similar story - they seem to make normal people drop their lives completely to follow the leader; they often have some form of Apocalyptic world view; their followers ascribe miraculous powers to them; they live outside the law and very often come into conflict with the authorities; followers will often give their lives such is their belief in the leader etc etc... Jesus was simply the first of these cult leaders, nothing more.
This question is addressed well in Bart Ehrman's book The Triumph of Christianity. If you type that into YouTube you can also find some good interviews summarizing the book. TLDR: unlike Judaism, Christianity actively tries to convert people. Unlike pagan religions, Christianity is exclusive, so there is a ratcheting effect as people convert and paganism lost adherents. Once Christianity reached a critical mass in the Roman Empire it became popular with the upper class. Once Emperor Konstantine converted, Christianity exploded. And the rest is history..... actually, I guess all of it is history.
Christianity as developed by St. Paul pressed the right cultural buttons at the right time, and then achieved the critical mass of getting adopted as the state religion by a world superpower (which lead to it being the state religion of a succession of world superpowers over the following 2000 years). Divine providence or dumb luck? Well given that other religions have spread in the same way, Occams Razor suggests luck. Incidentally, you might be interested in an alternate history novel by Kim Stanley Robinson, *The Years of Rice and Salt*. It's a good read. ;-)
>Seriously, why did Jesus (or at least the stories about him) cause such an impact in the world? Basically the same reasons Mohammed and Buddha and Joseph Smith became famous. They were the successful few of thousands of not millions of attempts to start religions. >But we can all agree the Jesus had the biggest presence as a religious leader so far. Arguably Paul and Mohammed's impact are bigger. Bart Ehrman wrote a book about it. It's not particularly surprising.
We don't know that Jesus has had the most influence. There are 3500+ years of Sumerian, Babylonian and Akkadian history we know very little about (other than that a dude got angry that his copper dealer ripped him off). Confucius has had a tremendous influence over quite a large population of people in the far east. Religion isn't a "mine's bigger" contest. My followers can beat up your followers. Popularity isn't a reliable predictor of truth.
Something like this happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism But due to a combination of factors, it took off. But you also have to ask “what took off”, since there isn’t one Christianity. It’s like a fable that has spread, and had its message and interpretations take on different meanings in different places. You know, Islam also took off, demonstrating that popularity doesn’t imply truth.
i think he was just very good at doing what he did. in the same way we know the names of ancient famous philosophers like Socrates we also know of this one dude who happened to create the most persuasive religious promises imaginable. what more could someone want than an all powerful god who loves you and will give you happiness for eternity if you just believe in him?
Jesus lived at a pivital time when the pagan Roman Empire was on its downfall, and the peoole were looking for new leadership. Plus, violence. Constantine ordered the Romam Empire be Christian in I think 381 AD and enforced it through violence.
And Christianity came after a lot of other religions. So OPs comment about religions adding Jesus etc, is non sense because Christianity it self stole form other religions. Judaism as well with the Babylonians and Sumerians etc.
I have always thought that the most surprising part of Jesus story is the fact that it didn't die with him. Many people here will start with the premise that Christianity spread through political convenience and the sword, but that completely ignores the early years of the church. Life in the bronze ages was brutal and hard, and the beleifs and values of bronze age people reflected that. Your community survived based on the strength of its fighting men, and if they failed the results were likely to be death, rape, and slavery. "Toxic masculinity" wasn't a problem in bronze age cultures so much as a survival trait. Might meant right, and power was synonymous with virtue. The most important traits of god's in these cultures was that they were powerful. If you were successful it meant the Gods favoured you: you were virtuous, and if you failed then you did so because you were worthless and the gods abandoned you. The success and power of the emperor of Rome made him a God in his own right. The Jewish god was not really different in this regard except in that they went further, claiming he was more powerful than all other gods. Crucifixion was a punishment designed for political prisoners. The idea was to do degrade, humiliate, and publicly display the powerlessness of the victim that it was clear how worthless they were. Then along came Jesus. A Jewish rabi and mystic with stories that in all honesty can't have stood out that much from other mystics of the time. He claimed to be (or at the very least have the backing of) the powerful God of the Jews. A claim that crucifixion should have utterly destroyed in the minds of his contemporaries. You even see this in the doubts of his disciples as written in the Bible. There is a modern myth that martyrdom is a powerful tool for creating fanatical followers, but outside of Jesus and Christianity I don't think there is any historical evidence for this. In the minds of a bronze age people, crucifixion should have been the ultimate proof that Jesus was a fraud. Then he got better - according to women, whose testimony would not have carried much weight at the time. The idea that it was a story made up to gather followers is ridiculous; it is not a story that should have appealed to followers at all. Especially as his early followers were persecuted and often killed for their beleifs. Yet not only did people follow his teachings, but over time they became the dominant religion of Rome. There was clearly an appeal to Christian teachings, and it had nothing to do with political convenience, conversion by the sword, or any other such nonsense.
Why did English become the dominant language on earth? I mean there have been lots of languages that different people speak, why did this language spoken by the people of some random little island come to dominate the world?
Are you seriously saying that you don't see how Christianity came to be so popular? Why do you pretend it's a mystery? It's not. And can you present a single thing about its popularity that suggests it is true?
Because he was martyred. It also allows the followers to constantly feign being oppressed. Ever notice how more than anyone else Christians, even when at the tippy top of society, LOOOOOVE playing the victim?
Crazy how all of these others religious idols all point to Jesus as a way, but Jesus points to himself as the ONLY way. And yes,, it is because Christianity is true.
Christian is not prolific because of the quality of its message, but because of the quantity of its violence. Besides, Jesus was fictional, like Thor or Vishnu.
Why did Batman get so famous? He doesn’t have any powers. Can it be because Batman is real? Or maybe is it because the character is relatable on some levels?
Colonialism maybe? Roman Empire? Spanish conquistadors? As with many major religions, how many were converted from the edge of a sword or the barrel of a gun?
He was a moral philosopher centuries ahead of his time. A true genius thar deserved to go down in history. Just not the son of a wizard
I guess he was an apocalyptic preacher, people went out, and word passed on until it just became ingrained as religion.
It's becasue Christ is the perfect representation of human potential; he is what we should all aspire to be even if in vain. His only weakness was his flesh. The red letters are hard to debate, even as an atheist. They just make sence, mostly becasue they share roots to other religions at their core (see Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism). Enlightenment, reincarnation, fulfillment. Makes you wonder what he was doing for those 20 some odd years before he returned to the West Bank. It's the ways his words are delivered too. Like poetry wrapped in a riddle. It's all up for interpretation but if you really understand, it all makes sence. Love God, love others, love yourself, and don't judge others. It's so perfect in it's simplicity, and I wish his words were not tainted by humanity and organized religion. It's important to note that there are things to learn from the other religions. They are all connected if you ask me, yet Christ's teachings are the keystone.
At the end of the day he was a human who people believed was a messiah and then he got crucified for real and at that point the story took a life on its own. It’s the very same reason when the US killed bin Laden they dumped him in the ocean so no one could say they saw him resurrected from his burial. Getting crucified was what made him a big deal and since his followers stole his body from the grave, which means everyone else was like whoah his body is not there therefore he resurrected! From there the story took life. Had he died a normal death and buried like normal then he’d be another Elijah or whatever.