they're arguably what started the Christian church — JustSomeGuy

The life Jesus Christ was the event that started the Christian church. The nascent church preceded the New Testament.

There was Jesus, the disciples, and the Jewish community in which they were situated. Then there was Paul. There were groups of followers situated in synagogues, some of whom were not Jewish. There were 'house churches', which were groups of early believers who gathered together.

It was by the efforts of the early church that the New Testament was created. The collected writings in the New Testament eventually came to be seen as "the founding texts" but it was, actually, the other way around.

The Christian Scriptures are self-declared to be the Word of God; in that, they are unchangeable and must maintain a perfect degree of logic. Unlike to Koran, which has many "updates" to attempt to keep it relevant, the Christian scriptures does not allow for extra special revelation to be added and contradict prior writings.

What is it about the texts of the old and new testaments that spawned such encompassing religions based on them? — JustSomeGuy

The Old Testament is a book that reflects the growth and formation of a religion and a people (the Jews) over an extended period of time. Judaism probably started out as a one of several cults in the mixed populations on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. It either started as, or became, monotheistic, which was something of a novelty. Animal sacrifice was likely the central religious act of the cult, which developed into temple worship.

Judaism produced a number of leaders (prophets, kings, priests, etc.) who were vigorous preachers whose preaching and teaching was intensely meaningful and valuable for the solidarity of the Jewish people, and were preserved. Again, the religion preceded and developed along with it's sacred texts. The texts didn't come first. The cult came first.

There is a difference between the religion of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome: The Greco-Roman gods were vested with great power, but their theogony (founding myth story) is much more "human" than the invisible, solitary, ethically demanding god of the Jews.

The Jews were independent at various times, but a good share of their history was spent either under threat of various enemies, or under the thumb of much larger powers. Their history naturally affected the shape of their religious story.

No one can say whether there was a more inspiring religion than the Jews, because most of the competing religions did not survive--they were crushed by the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, Christians, and Moslems. Zoroastrianism (ancient and native to Persia) has survived, while the various religions of south Asia have survived and flourished.

There isn't a lot of religious writing from the ancient world that we can compare to the OT or NT. (There was likely a large body of religious material in the ancient world, but, like the once-extensive literature of Greece and Rome, very little has survived.

I'm aware of all that, I guess I just chose my words poorly. The Church as we know it today is completely different from those early followers of Christianity. It's a huge, organized institution. This is the entity I was referring to. So I guess to put it in different terms, my question is why the Christian church grew from what you described into what it is today. Why specifically that doctrine, as opposed to any of the other philosophical or religious ideologies from during and before that time? Nearly 60% of the world population is either Christian or Muslim (around 30% each). Both of these religions have their origin in the texts of the old testament, with their main holy texts being based on the account of one individual who was interpreting or fulfilling prophecies from these texts. And yet less than 0.2% of the world are Jewish, a religion which is also based on many of these same texts. So is it because of Jesus and Muhammad specifically? What do they have in common? Sure they claimed to be messengers of God, but so did the people who wrote the Tanakh, right? So why Christianity and Islam but not Judaism?

No one can say whether there was a more inspiring religion than the Jews, because most of the competing religions did not survive--they were crushed by the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, Christians, and Moslems. Zoroastrianism (ancient and native to Persia) has survived, while the various religions of south Asia have survived and flourished.

There isn't a lot of religious writing from the ancient world that we can compare to the OT or NT. (There was likely a large body of religious material in the ancient world, but, like the once-extensive literature of Greece and Rome, very little has survived — Bitter Crank

I suppose this is the best answer that can be given. I still wonder if there's anything inherent in the teachings themselves that allowed things to play out as they did, though. Why the followers of those ideologies came to power and were able to wipe out competing ideologies. I suppose it could just be chance.

In a nutshell, Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions. That is, they believe they can, should, and ought to convert people. Judaism is based on blood: one is born a Jew. One can convert to Judaism, but that hasn't resulted in many new Jews in the world.

Both Christianity and Islam were aggressive in their missionary efforts. They both employed a lot of talented people to go forth and spread the word, one way or another.

Unlike to Koran — Lone Wolf

I'm not sure why you compare it to the Quran when Christianity and Islam have nearly equal numbers of followers.

The Koran and the Bible are quite different books, composed by quite different methods. How many believers there are is a separate matter, not related to how the books were composed or compiled.

Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions. That is, they believe they can, should, and ought to convert people. Judaism is based on blood: one is born a Jew — Bitter Crank

Of course. I didn't even consider the ethnic component of Judaism, with that in mind it makes perfect sense.


Yes but I assumed Lone Wolf's reply was an answer to my question of why Christianity spread more than other religions. In that context it does't make sense to compare it to another religion with almost just as many followers.

People get around this problem by interpreting sacred texts as they like, a perfectly normal procedure.

it does't make sense to compare it to another religion with almost just as many followers. — JustSomeGuy

Sure it does, because similar approaches produced similar results. If you look at the world's major religions, those that actively go out and recruit new members (rather than depending on reproduction) are higher in number and exist in more varied societies.

This is, in some ways, quite unfortunate because some of the non-evangelizing religions might be better for the world, in the long run. But... we have got what we have got.

What is it about the texts of the old and new testaments that spawned such encompassing religions based on them? — JustSomeGuy

Of course, it isn't just those texts. Christianity, in particular, acquired and kept a lot of pagan stuff that its members like a lot. Christmas trees and Easter bunnies have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, except they were picked up from German and Anglo Saxon pagans. Islam picked up the flavor of Arabs, naturally.

Sure it does, because similar approaches produced similar results. — Bitter Crank

Well in that regard, yes, but it seemed to be the original reply wasn't implying that. When I ask why X has so many followers as opposed to all the other letters, and someone says "Well X has such and such characteristics, unlike Y which has such and such characteristics", the implication is that these differences are why X has so many more followers than Y. But X doesn't have so many more followers than Y. In fact we're due soon to see Islam surpass Christianity, if it hasn't already.
Maybe I read into the original reply something that wasn't there, though. As I said I'm somewhat cognitively impaired at the moment.
Either way I appreciate the insight you've brought to the issue.

I'm somewhat cognitively impaired at the moment. — JustSomeGuy

What time zone are you in? Go back to bed, get some coffee, cook some oatmeal, or open a couple of Mountain Dews, whatever it takes to get your cognitive facilities functioning again.

I've had a bad flu for the past few days and feeling ill has made it hard to sleep, so unfortunately there's not much that can be done. I suppose I should probably just stay off of philosophy forums if I'm not in good condition to think clearly.

You asked what made the Christian scriptures different than other religious teachings, and that was one thing I found that was different.

Hope you feel better soon!

Yes, of course, they interpret passages differently, but the fundamental words don't seem to contradict, at least from what I have seen. Interpretations often contradict, such as those found with Mormons who interpret scriptures very differently than what the original texts declare.

Triumph of Christianity

A very interesting and easy read.

The history of Christianity is far more complex than simple text and the history of the Bible as a living and changing document is not the sole or maybe even not the most important reason for the growth of Christianity. Consider it a good marketing tool.

Drink lots of fluids, take some ibuprofen, or whatever single medication you prefer for discomfort. Don't mix a bunch of different flu/cold meds -- you can end up with an overdose of OTC medications which can be quite dangerous, especially for the liver. Rest. Eat some food as you feel able. Just accept that you feel horrible and that it will last for a while, then it will go away. If you don't feel better in 10 days, you might want to call your clinic for advice.