The Rise of Christianity Challenge!

[achilles12604]

Non-theists argue against almost every topic brought up by apologists. Many times I have put forth that analyzing a single piece of evidence is not an accurate way to critique historical analysis because evidence often will corroborate with other pieces of evidence and then together they make a strong case where-as separately they are weaker.

I was recently thinking about Dan Barker's Easter Challenge (which I did take by the way). I was applying my thoughts to his challenge and realized he was asking theists to analyze history much in the same way as I ask the non-theists to do. So I came up with an idea. Here is the Achilles12604 Rise of Christianity Challenge.

Come up with a logical analysis for the causation of Christianity. You are all well aware of the position of the Christian apologist. We feel that our analysis of the evidence has led us, using Occams Razor, to the simplest and most logical conclusion. You do not, so is it your turn to explain to us how Christianity began without omitting a single detail.

You must account for at least the following and anything else which I have inadvertently forgotten. . .

1) The Gospels being written by at least the following dates
Mark 65-70 CE
Matthew 70-80 CE
Luke 80-85 CE

2) The letters of Paul and his writings on the subjects, specifically the parts where he refers to Jesus as a human, any of Jesus actions, and beliefs of himself and those he speaks about.

3) The writings of Josephus

4) The Historical account presented in the Talmud

5) The fact that the geography of the Gospels (especially Luke) is almost exact.

6) The fact that Archeology has not uncovered anything that contradicts a Gospel, or acts, or Pauline letter account.

7) The beliefs of the very first Christians (Nazarenes).

8) The accounts of history such as Caesar’s declaration around 60CE that bodies were never to be taken out of the graves, punishable by death, right near Nazareth.

9) Later archeology and history such as Pliny's letters.

10) The conversion of Paul

11) The conversion of the early Jews, constituting the Council of Jerusalem

12) The Martyrdom of James

13) The conversion of James

14) The martyrdom of the first apostles. ( I Know that there isn't solid evidence supporting these men being martyrs. However explain why the early church fathers would write about the details of their deaths, if something close to that did actually happen.)

Ok that’s all I can think of for now. Each of these points is supported by a document we posses, a consensus of scholars (yes even secular) or in the case of the last point, a logical conclusion. With the possible exception of the last point, these are facts. Now please explain what happened. You may be brief if you wish but the more you leave out, the more holes will be very apparent in your hypothesis about the series of events.

Please present your version of events which accounts for all these things and culminates with the rise of an infant religion which was able to withstand the persecution of both the Roman Empire as well as the Jewish Nation for 300 years before it was accepted into Rome. If Dan Barkers Challenge required every detail of the Easter Story be accounted for, I should demand no less.

[Cathar1950]

I just read this the other day but the oldest church found is a Marionite church.
Many scholars suspect the false letters of Paul and the pastoral letters were done to circumvent Marcion. Some thin it was Marcion that wrote Paul's letters some think they were handed down to him. But until about this time Paul was out of favor because of his Gnostic leaning and anti-Jewish(law) tone. Marcion thought he was the only one that understood.

As I look at it sometimes I see three developments. I believe there were many more.
On one hand you have the Ebonites and Nazarenes on the other end the Gnostics and the proto-orthodox right in the middle.
Their theology made them choose both sides with some pagan inspiration.
The NT matches what they could handle.
Just one of many theories and ideas.

[Easyrider]

You do love your unsubstantiated theories. Once again, some credible evidence to bolster your beliefs might be novel, and welcome. Then they can be properly addressed. Until then, the NT looks a lot better than what you theorized.

[Goat]

You do love your unsubstantiated theories. Once again, some credible evidence to bolster your beliefs might be novel, and welcome. Then they can be properly addressed. Until then, the NT looks a lot better than what you theorized.

Let's see some credible evidence that the gospels existed in the first century.

Come on. lets see a reference to them FROM the first century.. Huh huh?? Let see it.

[Easyrider]

You do love your unsubstantiated theories. Once again, some credible evidence to bolster your beliefs might be novel, and welcome. Then they can be properly addressed. Until then, the NT looks a lot better than what you theorized.

Let's see some credible evidence that the gospels existed in the first century.

Come on. lets see a reference to them FROM the first century.. Huh huh?? Let see it.

You wouldn't know what to do with it, except continue denying. There's plenty of scholars who date the vast majority of the NT to the first century. Does Cathar have that? What aren't you holding Cathar's feet to the fire? Where's his evidence? Or do you just love blindly gulping down anything that feeds your anti-biblical beliefs? You have an amazing double standard.

[Goat]

You do love your unsubstantiated theories. Once again, some credible evidence to bolster your beliefs might be novel, and welcome. Then they can be properly addressed. Until then, the NT looks a lot better than what you theorized.

Let's see some credible evidence that the gospels existed in the first century.

Come on. lets see a reference to them FROM the first century.. Huh huh?? Let see it.

You wouldn't know what to do with it, except continue denying. There's plenty of scholars who date the vast majority of the NT to the first century. Does Cathar have that? What aren't you holding Cathar's feet to the fire? Where's his evidence? Or do you just love blindly gulping down anything that feeds your anti-biblical beliefs? You have an amazing double standard.

I am not looking for some scholars opinion. I am looking for a non-biblican reference to one of the gospels by someone who we know is dated, or perhaps a fragment of a gospel that is found in a way we can date it.

Where are the first century references to the Gospels?? You make the claim that they are 1st century. Show evidence that is not more that pure speculation

[Easyrider]

Document Cathar's far-reaching claims and then we'll talk.

[Goat]

Document Cathar's far-reaching claims and then we'll talk.

I see that you have a double standard. You demand evidence from others (and reject it when they show it), yet you won't show any evidence of your claims

[Cathar1950]

Document Cathar's far-reaching claims and then we'll talk.

Can you make a list of my so-called far-reaching claims?
Goat is making the request not me. I am still working on my stuff.
What I say has nothing to do with Goat's request.
After you get done with that you can give me a list of the things you object to and my "far-reaching" claims.
I find it interesting that there is nothing before the second century but Paul's disputed collection of letters that don't even get mentioned before the second century and don't measure up to the account in Acts.
Until the second century there is nothing you can put your finger on. Just when they were all arguing doctrinal disagreements the writings start popping up on every side. The NT is just one group’s collection. We call them the proto-orthodox.
My list please?

[achilles12604]

You do love your unsubstantiated theories. Once again, some credible evidence to bolster your beliefs might be novel, and welcome. Then they can be properly addressed. Until then, the NT looks a lot better than what you theorized.

Let's see some credible evidence that the gospels existed in the first century.

Come on. lets see a reference to them FROM the first century.. Huh huh?? Let see it.

I could refer you back to Gettysburg if you wish to demand specific and indisputable evidence.

Why is it that non-theists demand so much more from Christianity than from anything else in history? Is it that silly phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"

This is a very uninsightful phrase simply because if the events in question DID happen, then they would have happened in the same time, on the same earth as all other events. Since they conform to the same prerequisites as other historical events, how can extra evidence be demaded?

Anyway I refer you back to Gettysburg about how easy it is to flat deny the evidence presented and make a good case for your viewpoint. . . . which is exactly what you are doing here.

[achilles12604]

Document Cathar's far-reaching claims and then we'll talk.

I see that you have a double standard. You demand evidence from others (and reject it when they show it), yet you won't show any evidence of your claims

Evidence of our claims?

Are you seriously accusing me (in particular), easyrider, Jester, Undor, and all the other theists here of never presenting a link? Are you suggesting we presented no evidence at all?

If yes, then . . . . well I don't really need to go anywhere with this since you would have proven everything I could say.

If no, then your previous post was a flat out lie, and what is more it is a lie that you wrote while KNOWING it was false.

So which is it?