Remember that you are reading something that was written after the fact, and with an agenda, and that no other sources from outside of the community recorded anything that was recorded in Christian literature. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive and suspect.
As to the growth of the church there are no reliable sources that indicate how many Christians were there. There was no clear division between the Christians and the Jews in the first century to begin with, since Christianity was a Jewish sect. In the second century, there were many Gnostic sects, all claiming to be "Christian", etc. Subsequent centuries (all the way up to the seventh) see the spread of Manichaeanism, not Christianity, as one of the largest religions in the known world.
The success of the church is due entirely to the fact that 1700 years ago, Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the only permitted (state) religion in Rome, a decision entirely based on his superstitious interpretation of a dream he had.
Manichaenism = Manichaeism
What did I tell you? You give the exact example that there is no evidence that you will accept.
Points:
Agenda is understood, yet the testimony of an empty tomb and a face to face encounter with Jesus is recognized by nearly all biblical scholars at the earliest level - from day one kosta. The gospel writers emphasized they were telling the truth - not propaganda. Were it an 'agenda' kosta, please tell us why the Apostles are shown to be such dunderheads - exposing their faults and fears. Luke in particular pays attention to historical details that were one time mocked but have later proved to be right on. Correct details lend credabilty to the rest of his writings )". . it seemed fitting … having investigated everything from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order,… so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:3-4)
As to the growth of the church there are no reliable sources that indicate how many Christians were there. There was no clear division between the Christians and the Jews in the first century to begin with, since Christianity was a Jewish sect.
Perhaps no difference to a roman official kosta - but internally it was readily apparent - Christians were persecuted by the jewish leadership. Jewish Christians were eventually kicked out of the synagogues across eurasia.
AFA growth, pretty lame denial here on a minor issue. Facts are that by 120 AD even rome recognized Christianity - Tacitus wrote there was a growth of the following of Jesus after his death for instance. 3000 are recorded on the day of Pentecost and by the end of Paul's ministry churches had been established all over asia minor and southern europe. Pliny the Younger complained about its growth in 110 AD. The fact is kosta, the church grew inspite of the persecution and the contrary nature of the gospel it preached.
In the second century, there were many Gnostic sects, all claiming to be "Christian", etc.
And how successful were they in the long term - not very. And even the short term, they were limited geographically as well as demographically. By the second century Christianity had spread over a substantial area - Europe, Asia, Africa.
Subsequent centuries (all the way up to the seventh) see the spread of Manichaeanism, not Christianity, as one of the largest religions in the known world.
Manichaeanism huh, interesting because at encyclopedia.com they refer to it as an "extinct" religion. Not very successful in the long run eh kosta.
The success of the church is due entirely to the fact that 1700 years ago, Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the only permitted (state) religion in Rome, a decision entirely based on his superstitious interpretation of a dream he had.
LOL, yes Constantine ate too much pasta before going to bed that night. Yet you give him too much credit, especially since after Nicea he turned the arians loose against the Christians for another round and period of persecution now didn't he. And also, Christianity was growing in areas outside of Rome's control at that time as well. Yet the bottom line is kosta - it did grow inspite of persecution and inspite of constantine.
One point I see you avoided was the profound change in the Apostles and other followers after the resurrection.
All he did in the Edict of Milan was remove penalties for practising Christianity. This Edict did not only protect Christians, but ALL religions, allowing all to worship whichever deity they chose. This was passed in 313. In 311, Emperor Galerius had passed a similar edict.
Theodosius I the Great declared Christianity the official state religion in 380 AD.
Taking it coldly and not weighing the merits or demerits of its philosophy, Manichaenism just came at the wrong time. It was growing up when Zoroastrianism and Christianity already had state influence and that was the territory Manichaenism wanted to muscle in to
It did not work. By 291, they were being persecuted in persia and later around 300 Diocletian order them to be condemned to fire
Manichaenism is speculated to have influenced +Augustine -- how much, I have not studied enough to give an opinion on
But there is no doubt that the Cathars, paulicians, etc. were Manichaen in thought