JW Insider

Sounds doubtful. Almost as if it needs to be true just to make that particular interpretation work. Worse than eisegesis.

Sure. You just didn’t want to leave Walter stranded high and dry. Old softie.

I  too have bored my family on vacation when I looked at the sewerage systems, baths, building materials, walking through the town and studying all the implements and hand tools and went through the sites with a tooth comb.  I always had a penchant for understanding how the poor folks got through their day.
Recently I listened to a talk by a professor (forgot his name) but he spoke about "empire".   It made me think of the seven heads of the beast.  What he said came down to this: empire was always a war machine which fed the rich and the ruling class.  Soldiers  would grab not only slaves but the wheat, food, animals and strip the land of all its riches.  Everything was transported back to the capital city or became part of booty.  Afterwards there was also the matter of tribute from the survivors.......  Does modern empire work the same?   Certainly.... especially the false prophet which has "two horns like a lamb but began speaking like dragon".  All these trumped up wars come to mind.
Listened today to two people talking about the time under Stalin. How the death squads within Russia murdered people via poisons and plausible suicides and also operated in other countries. One such killer in UK was tracked and he had already committed 14 murders without anyone suspecting foul play.  The polonium case however did hit international news. Putin has similar operations today and was apparently involved in this type of operations in his salad days. 
Eight oligarchs, living in other countries, have died suddenly from non-suspect heart attacks, except for one family who  were all brutally murdered, children included. The father was working as an accountant and had given information to the West on how money was being transferred through banks while renewed sanctions were in place. 

I think we tend to misinterpret Acts 20:20, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't preach from house to house. I'm only saying that this isn't what that specific verse is about. We tend to impose a meaning on it that isn't there because of our favored method of preaching. But that doesn't mean that the term "house to house" is a terrible translation, only that we don't think enough about what it must have meant in that particular context.
There are good reasons today to use the house-to-house preaching methods, because there is no central gathering place where people get news and share ideas. In some cities there is something akin to that in certain parks. Union Square Park and Washington Square Park in NYC come to mind as places where people, often from NYU, meet to hold up signs and megaphones to promote an ideology. In fact, I have had success talking to individuals in these parks. But most people are not there to get talked to.
We are "encouraged" to report, it isn't "demanded."

I think we tend to misinterpret Acts 20:20, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't preach from house to house. I'm only saying that this isn't what that specific verse is about. We tend to impose a meaning on it that isn't there because of our favored method of preaching. But that doesn't mean that the term "house to house" is a terrible translation, only that we don't think enough about what it must have meant in that particular context.
There are good reasons today to use the house-to-house preaching methods, because there is no central gathering place where people get news and share ideas. In some cities there is something akin to that in certain parks. Union Square Park and Washington Square Park in NYC come to mind as places where people, often from NYU, meet to hold up signs and megaphones to promote an ideology. In fact, I have had success talking to individuals in these parks. But most people are not there to get talked to.
We are "encouraged" to report, it isn't "demanded."

Thanks for your input. This makes perfect sense, and it aligns with what we read in Acts and does not at all contradict Jesus' instructions to the 70 evangelizers. There was an urgency to the preaching in the first century, and the most effective means, for that time and place, would have been used first.
Thought this was excellent, too. Among the Greeks [and Romans], these empty rituals were more important than beliefs. There was not much concern that the story about a certain god in one town could differ quite a bit from the stories told in another town. There was no specific set of beliefs or doctrines, so that the expectations about how humans could be affected from the gods was more general and rooted in superstition. Events were often "chalked up" to the capriciousness of those gods.
Your description of the appeal and superiority of the Christian message in those next couple paragraphs was packed with so many good points. I loved it.
It sounds like you have a great knowledge of history, but there is a difference in knowledge and making sense of it to people today. I think that's a great skill of yours. You actually make sense out of it. And the fact that you live in such historic geographical locations must make your knowledge and application come alive even more.
As a family (wife, kids, brother, parents) we have taken a couple Mediterranean cruises that covered Rome, Pompeii, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus/Smyrna, Egypt, and Istanbul. I'm sure I bored my kids with all the details I wanted to share about the Biblical and historical connections in all these places. At least they could always go back to unlimited ice cream and pizza when they got back on the cruise ship. 
 

I think we tend to misinterpret Acts 20:20, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't preach from house to house. I'm only saying that this isn't what that specific verse is about. We tend to impose a meaning on it that isn't there because of our favored method of preaching. But that doesn't mean that the term "house to house" is a terrible translation, only that we don't think enough about what it must have meant in that particular context.
There are good reasons today to use the house-to-house preaching methods, because there is no central gathering place where people get news and share ideas. In some cities there is something akin to that in certain parks. Union Square Park and Washington Square Park in NYC come to mind as places where people, often from NYU, meet to hold up signs and megaphones to promote an ideology. In fact, I have had success talking to individuals in these parks. But most people are not there to get talked to.
We are "encouraged" to report, it isn't "demanded."

Thanks for your input. This makes perfect sense, and it aligns with what we read in Acts and does not at all contradict Jesus' instructions to the 70 evangelizers. There was an urgency to the preaching in the first century, and the most effective means, for that time and place, would have been used first.
Thought this was excellent, too. Among the Greeks [and Romans], these empty rituals were more important than beliefs. There was not much concern that the story about a certain god in one town could differ quite a bit from the stories told in another town. There was no specific set of beliefs or doctrines, so that the expectations about how humans could be affected from the gods was more general and rooted in superstition. Events were often "chalked up" to the capriciousness of those gods.
Your description of the appeal and superiority of the Christian message in those next couple paragraphs was packed with so many good points. I loved it.
It sounds like you have a great knowledge of history, but there is a difference in knowledge and making sense of it to people today. I think that's a great skill of yours. You actually make sense out of it. And the fact that you live in such historic geographical locations must make your knowledge and application come alive even more.
As a family (wife, kids, brother, parents) we have taken a couple Mediterranean cruises that covered Rome, Pompeii, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus/Smyrna, Egypt, and Istanbul. I'm sure I bored my kids with all the details I wanted to share about the Biblical and historical connections in all these places. At least they could always go back to unlimited ice cream and pizza when they got back on the cruise ship. 
 

It was custom to congregate at the city gates or market places.  Paul was the "apostle to the nations" and preached to Greeks as well as other nations.  He was here in Albania via the Via Ignatius from Corinth - then called Illyricum.  (He could have been in the port city here where I live because Rome later considered to make this the eastern capital instead of Byzantium). At the gates or market Paul usually would find someone favorable and go home with them and preach further. On occasion he would use this house as a base. He also went to the Synagogues.  In most cities it was the Jews who started the riots because he was teaching a new form of Judaism. (To them it sounded like blasphemy, when they refused to acknowledge the Messiah had come.) In the week, I am sure, he would have done some house preaching after working on tents. 
Although the Greeks had the oratory tradition, I wonder how much of a help it really gave to the poor and those who moved in the lower echelons of society? Religion was run by the upper echelons or educated segments of society. It was also very set in tradition and ritual. To my thinking, it offers only an empty framework of tradition and many stories of Gods - as much as Hinduism with its many gods and its caste system does today.  With skillful preaching (and the miracles during the lifetime of the Apostles), the gospel message was appealing to those with a searching heart.  (The other points mentioned above about angels and other points, were good to think about.)
Not only did the Christians teach a different god, a creator with a Name (using the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scriptures), but this god was interested in humans because he sent a loving, human son who came to earth to show us how to live.  This representative of God was killed as a man because he preached about a future kingdom which would restore the earth..... and this ONE was killed in a very ghastly way by the authorities (which I supposed appealed to anyone ever treated unjustly by authorities or even a few rebels).  He taught that all humans were brothers and war and violence was wrong.  (The military machine of Rome would not like this idea because one could only rise to the top in society through war such as humble donkey breeder, Vespasian.)
The fact that this lowly Jesus (being the son of the true god), was prepared to die for our imperfections, and all his associates saw him raised up again, must have been a powerful message. The gospel message was simple - in that it taught love.  That all should love and treat each other justly, to share material things, be hospitable, no biased, and to not be selfish or materialistic, not hang onto earthly things because Jehovah would provide. Also the pagan religions taught a lot of superstition. They were free from fear and superstition. 
I think those plagues against Christendom in Revelation 6 were all thrown down from heaven by the angels and distributed by Rutherford against Christendom in his public exposes - lol -  (he had his fiery place in the unfolding of Jehovah's purposes). 
I appreciate your examples - I must add that these are all individuals that you quote during a period of the dark ages. A period when the Catholic church allowed no dissent to their false teachings. Very little true light was available.  But a slow renaissance was coming into the church as well. JWs often cite these examples of faithful people, who stood up against the powerful church, as ones who were possibly also anointed by Jehovah as they often were burnt or executed by the Church. John Wycliffe, Johannes Huss,  comes to mind. They kept their integrity with the available light they had at the time.   Jesus taught that ALL Christians must carry the gospel (Romans 10) How will they know if they have not heard? (paraphrased).
As I mentioned before, people who just read the bible with a sincere heart, understand that they have to preach.  I have a Swedish friend who had never read the bible in her life or been to a religious class (her parents were atheists), who tried to preach on her own after she regularly read the bible. She did not know how to go about it and no-one listened. It was not long after this that Witnesses found her and she is still a full-time preacher today.
 
We not only preach but we are an earth-wide community or congregation of people dedicated Jehovah.  In the "last day" this prophecy is coming to fulfillment.
Isaiah 2: 2- 4 "  In the final part of the days,he mountain of the house of Jehovah Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, And it will be raised up above the hills, And to it all the nations will stream.c 3  And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, To the house of the God of Jacob. He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion, And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. 4  He will render judgment among the nations And set matters straight* respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore.
From the above we learn that they are under heavenly mount Zion, New Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22 But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads* of angels).  Jesus is now ruling invisibly in heaven and we fall, as a world-wide nation under his heavenly government. The identifying mark is our love because we refuse to kill our brothers in other nations - we are not influenced by the nationalistic wars propagated by beastly nations. 
 
My husband grew up as a Brethren, which also has different sects.  Some of them do not even eat with their children if they have not been baptized. 

Are you kidding? I love the house to house work!! It's true that Rutherford made excuses as to why he didn't participate, but I bet he would have loved it, too, if he had just did done more of it. At least he pushed the laws of the land to make it more legal and more commonplace. Rutherford deserves a lot of credit for why Witnesses have the top reputation for the religion that preaches the kingdom from house-to-house, even after the hiatus.
I think it's also a very appropriate method for today. We don't really have a town square "agora" equivalent today. House to house isn't as effective as some methods, such as good publicity in widely watched media, but it's still the perfect method for most of us.
My true preference is a mix of face-to-face Bible studies for about half my time, and house-to-house for the other half. I like to see the householder's face to see how they are really responding.
In Jesus' day and in Paul's day you could find interest by preaching in a synagogue or town square or another public meeting place, and then follow up on that interest by getting invited to the home to develop the interest of that person/family.

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

It does not contradict what Jesus said, because the Greek here does really not say anything about going from house to house. The KJV translators had a lot to do with this translation, and "from house to house" has therefore become a common English way of saying "in your houses."
Paul is saying, basically: I didn't just teach you brothers publicly [among other people], but even [privately] in your homes.
Notice that the literal expression in the Kingdom Interlinear is "according to houses" not "from house to house."

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

And, of course, Jesus explains why in the context.
Most translations still follow the KJV example, but some have used a more koine-Greek-based translation, saying:
NLT: I never shrank back from telling you what you needed to hear, either publicly or in your homes.
Latin Vulgate: quomodo nihil subtraxerim utilium quo minus adnuntiarem vobis et docerem vos publice et per domos
CEB You know I held back nothing that would be helpful so that I could proclaim to you and teach you both publicly and privately in your homes. CEV When I preached in public or taught in your homes, I didn't hold back from telling anything that would help you. ERV I always did what was best for you. I told you the Good News about Jesus in public before the people and also taught in your homes. GNT You know that I did not hold back anything that would be of help to you as I preached and taught in public and in your homes. TLB Yet I never shrank from telling you the truth, either publicly or in your homes. ICB You know I preached to you, and I did not hold back anything that would help you. You know that I taught you in public and in your homes.   Also, I should add that I don't think Paul never would go from one house to the next in his preaching, if the situation called for it. It's just that Acts 20:20 isn't really about that kind of preaching activity.

Granted, you did.
Here’s a fine article about the ‘mother of all lies’ retracted so that no one would believe the ‘lying apostate’ adage. Once again, as with you, it does not appear the lie was deliberate, but the malignancy of the writer is so intense that any ill-report, the wilder the better, is eagerly seized upon and heralded far and wide (and then it turns out to be untrue).
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/hey-guys-sorry-about-that-mother-of-all-lies.html
Kind of like how the Russian Orthodox Church squeals with delight (like kids on Christmas morning) at the ban on Jehovah’s people, even though they themselves did not originate it. 
Kind of like how the ‘yellow rain’ dossier was eagerly gobbled up by enemies of a controversial president because they hated him.
Hatred invariably blinds a person.
 

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

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

“Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere to put their posts in proper categories. And what is more, he even brought malcontents into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” For they had previously seen Srecko in the city with him, and they assumed that JWI had brought him into the temple.”
Act now! The next ten comments should be on entirely different topics until he gives up on this nonsense!

Xero schmero!
He may get top billing but it is in response to MY comment. 
That mean I am the kingpin! Moi! TrueTomHarley! THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT! Xero, my rear end! I can’t stand that guy’s whining. Hope he goes to some other congregation so they can deal with it!  

Are you kidding? I love the house to house work!! It's true that Rutherford made excuses as to why he didn't participate, but I bet he would have loved it, too, if he had just did done more of it. At least he pushed the laws of the land to make it more legal and more commonplace. Rutherford deserves a lot of credit for why Witnesses have the top reputation for the religion that preaches the kingdom from house-to-house, even after the hiatus.
I think it's also a very appropriate method for today. We don't really have a town square "agora" equivalent today. House to house isn't as effective as some methods, such as good publicity in widely watched media, but it's still the perfect method for most of us.
My true preference is a mix of face-to-face Bible studies for about half my time, and house-to-house for the other half. I like to see the householder's face to see how they are really responding.
In Jesus' day and in Paul's day you could find interest by preaching in a synagogue or town square or another public meeting place, and then follow up on that interest by getting invited to the home to develop the interest of that person/family.

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

Are you kidding? I love the house to house work!! It's true that Rutherford made excuses as to why he didn't participate, but I bet he would have loved it, too, if he had just did done more of it. At least he pushed the laws of the land to make it more legal and more commonplace. Rutherford deserves a lot of credit for why Witnesses have the top reputation for the religion that preaches the kingdom from house-to-house, even after the hiatus.
I think it's also a very appropriate method for today. We don't really have a town square "agora" equivalent today. House to house isn't as effective as some methods, such as good publicity in widely watched media, but it's still the perfect method for most of us.
My true preference is a mix of face-to-face Bible studies for about half my time, and house-to-house for the other half. I like to see the householder's face to see how they are really responding.
In Jesus' day and in Paul's day you could find interest by preaching in a synagogue or town square or another public meeting place, and then follow up on that interest by getting invited to the home to develop the interest of that person/family.

Also what about angels? They must have still had the ability to guide circumstances here and there on earth, even when the spiritual gifts waned.
And there was another practical method of preaching that we don't have. There was a reason that Paul didn't go from house to house. And there was a reason that Jesus forbid the 70 disciples from going house to house. It was because you had an immediate assembly as soon as got into the gates of most towns/cities. You could begin announcing the reason for your visit in the town square and draw a crowd. There was no reason to go from house to house. It would be a waste of time (and they were never going to finish the circuit of towns in Israel as it was).
But there was always a chance to find multiple favorable ears, all that would listen, by just walking into a town and start preaching to the crowd in the marketplace, the square, the agora.

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

Also what about angels? They must have still had the ability to guide circumstances here and there on earth, even when the spiritual gifts waned.
And there was another practical method of preaching that we don't have. There was a reason that Paul didn't go from house to house. And there was a reason that Jesus forbid the 70 disciples from going house to house. It was because you had an immediate assembly as soon as got into the gates of most towns/cities. You could begin announcing the reason for your visit in the town square and draw a crowd. There was no reason to go from house to house. It would be a waste of time (and they were never going to finish the circuit of towns in Israel as it was).
But there was always a chance to find multiple favorable ears, all that would listen, by just walking into a town and start preaching to the crowd in the marketplace, the square, the agora.

Also what about angels? They must have still had the ability to guide circumstances here and there on earth, even when the spiritual gifts waned.
And there was another practical method of preaching that we don't have. There was a reason that Paul didn't go from house to house. And there was a reason that Jesus forbid the 70 disciples from going house to house. It was because you had an immediate assembly as soon as got into the gates of most towns/cities. You could begin announcing the reason for your visit in the town square and draw a crowd. There was no reason to go from house to house. It would be a waste of time (and they were never going to finish the circuit of towns in Israel as it was).
But there was always a chance to find multiple favorable ears, all that would listen, by just walking into a town and start preaching to the crowd in the marketplace, the square, the agora.

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)