>>34418 Afterlife. Unified culture above that of your own native one.
Mostly, the fact that the emperors converted which then meant that the rich converted, which then meant the poor converted to try and emulate them. If Constantine had not been such a cultural kekold then Christianity would never have gone from being one cult among many to a world spanning religion.
>>34475 I'm not too familar with Judaism, but isn't this a feature of that as well. It was one of the most sucessful early monothesitic religions. But the stigma of Jews and anti-semitism likely prevented such mainstream popularity.
Christianity subverted traditional Roman values and promised people a reward. In Roman society, most of the population got the shit end of the stick, so when people started preaching that they still had value even though they weren't wealthy, or in perfect physical condition, it was appealing. So is the notion that they would have their mistreatment made up for in the future.
That's why early Christianity was mostly spread by women. Women were seen as equal in Christian communities, and that was way more appealing than basically being property.
It was similar in spirit to all the other cults that were born around that time (like the cults of Cybele or Isis, or Sol Invictus, or Manichaeism, or Monophysitism, or Nestorianism), but it had a much more compelling story.
There's also something that sets the Christian text aside from all other religions. It's actually a deconstruction of all other religion and a total rejection of violence and sacrifice, which have been the basis of religion and culture for all of human history. That part wasn't understood by the vast majority of people though.
"You will burn and suffer for all eternity unless you do the following"
"You see this god? He's clearly and angel of God who was sent to make you ready for your arrival"
It offered something few if any religions offered before and knew exactly what to say. For people who lived in a time where education and knowledge of the world was at a a minimum and superstition was the standard, this was gold.
>>34665 He is regarded as a Messenger of God and the Messiah who didn't die but was saved by God and raised to Heaven. He will return to help al-Mahdi in his war against the False Messiah at the time of the Apocalypse.
>>34787 That was the case while it was a small fringe movement of peasants. But in the 4th century when it massively expanded it goes in the order I described. Romans were very class and status conscious so would always do what their social betters would do, including changing their religion.
While we are on the topic, how did the Roman Catholic church become the largest and most influential denomination of Christianity? I find it interesting the way the position of the Pope went from a follower of Jesus to basically a king.
>>34535 The Jews shot themselves in the foot in a variety of ways. The biggest was how they equated religious identity with ethnic identity, which made it nearly impossible for the religion to spread widely.
As for the loving God part, the Jews are sticking with the old testament. It's full of fire, brimstone, and vengeance. The new testament actually is about mercy and forgiveness, and it's a direct repudiation of the corruption that had become rampant in Judaism at the time.
Similar corruption appeared in medieval Christianity, which lead to the Protestant reformation. However, Christianity had evolved into a dominant and versatile framework long before that kind of institutional corruption got out of control. The early focus on the core principles allowed it to adapt and assimilate good ideas such as Christmas celebrations.
>>34859 It simply inherited the religious legacy of the Roman emperors and got recognized as the "official" church.
>Rich people created it and cultivated it from the beggining >So strong that started wars of its own >Massive spread through the most civilized and rich part of the world at the time (Europe) >Easily believed, followed and its believes conforts its members(One God, be good and you will be saved=profit)
>>34743 >It was similar in spirit to all the other cults that were born around that time (like the cults of Cybele or Isis, or Sol Invictus I'm pretty sure I have read somewhere that this opinion is no longer held by most scholars but I admit that I'm not really well versed in this topic. Can anyone else comment on this?
>>35015 >It simply inherited the religious legacy of the Roman emperors and got recognized as the "official" church. Well, I should expand on this a bit since there was more than "simply." The hard part was staying big and relevant after becoming corrupt and going through revolution. The protestant reformation could've lead to the end of the Catholic church, but instead it ended up pulling back from politics and getting out of the way of the great powers and their wars. It also eventually gave up on fighting protestantism. It instead focused on missionary activity and developing bases in poor and overlooked areas of the world, where kings and conquerors didn't mind its spread or welcomed it as a way of displacing troublesome local cults. This brings us to the modern day where the Pope isn't from Rome and the church is a pretty big deal in South America.
>>34859 Your two sentences are not really related. For the first one, Orthodox states literally couldn't stop fighting each other despite being threatened by islam and Constantinople fell.
For the second one, the patriarch of Rome was alone in the West, he had no equal to counter balance his position. To make it worst (or better) he was the patriarch of the holy city, the place with the strongest symbology in Europe even when it wasn't that important anymore on pragmatical terms. Third, with no imperial power in the west (or a very dubious one who actually owed it's imperial title to the Pope, like the Carolingians and the HRE) the Pope was basically free to do whatever he wanted (or trying to do whatever he wanted). This situation benefited most of the powerful western monarchies except the Empire, so the Papacy didn't lack supports to become more and more powerful.
>>35272 It's also important that no first rank power converted to protestantism, they all became relevant powers after that conversion. For more than a century after the reformation, the struggle for Europe was still between the Habsburgs and the french, both catholic powers. In the east, catholic Poland dominated christendom. Protestant countries like Sweden or England, or even the Netherlands, could not compete alone for hegemony over Europe. It was centuries after the reformation, when the french defeated the Habsburg hegemony, that protestant powers started to become more and more relevant eventually surpassing every catholic nation (maybe except France itself).
>>34418 I'm not sure if it was already mentioned, but I'm too tired to read through all the comments.
The reason it was successful was because it appealed to the mass and that mass was poor people. When it arrived in Rome, the income inequality was astounding. So when they heard of a man who would split the wealth and all will be equal, hell yea they would flock towards this new god, who would give them a better life. Appealing to peoples emotions is a sure way to increase any ideology.
Of course, now a days that is not the case and it turned into an irony of itself.
The gospels are hardly accurate information about Jesus. They are religious texts written decades later in a language neither Jesus or his original followers spoke. Most of the claims about him being literally god are in John, the last of the gospels to be written.
To fully understand him and who he was you need to study Jewish beliefs at the time and the historical context. There was a major cultural meme of Jewish rabbis claiming to be the messiah at the time, which is not the same as claiming to be god or the son of god.
>>34535 Judaism is ethnically focused on the decedents of Abraham. Gentiles converting to the religion doesn't really make much sense.
>>34698 >That's why early Christianity was mostly spread by women. Women were seen as equal in Christian communities, and that was way more appealing than basically being property. If I remember correctly, this happened again when Christianity started spreading in Mesoamerica.
>>34857 >>35034 Heresies are incorrect versions of a religion, not different religions entirely.
All the Romans had their polytheism, and then there were the uppity Jews who were always starting shit and had fucked up weird rituals and ideals.
Of course the Romans BTFO Jews many times.
(This is not historically accepted, but "Jesus Christ" was likely made up by the Romans to piss off and divide the Jews.)
Anyways, Jesus Christ King Of The Jews was claimed to be the Son Of God and Messiah, which were both ridiculous ideas combined with the fact that Jesus did not fulfill a single one of the Jewish Messianic Prophecies- which included things like creating world peace and gathering all the Jews in Israel.
Regardless, the Jews were in fact divided, with some Jews being Jews and some being Christian. The Jews thought they were Chosen and above all the "slave cattle goyim" and Christianity seemed to be the perfect pacification.
Christianity caught on for this reason and soon Christians were running around and destroying old temples and statues, chopping down sacred trees and what not. Soon The Roman Emperor Constantine thought this was cool and decided to usher in an era of forced conversion of pagans and soon Christianity had spread like wildfire.
the story, as far as I remember was a later addition made up by eusebius at the later reign of Constantine and Chi Rho in the coinage etc was added later on.
but whether he saw a sign, whether it looked like chi rho etc are trivial matter imho. He might saw a sign and later interpret it as belonging to christian god, who knows.
but scholars today believe constantine was a genuine christian, the events at milvian bridge are trivial. what made the empire christian was not the milvian bridge but the sponsorship and support constantine gave to christians when he was the emperor.
watch bbc's rome rise and fall documentary constantine episode (don't confuse it with americna history channels documentary and constantine episode, I believe bbc's is better)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.