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.

[Easyrider]

There are some indications that some of the early church father's words ended up in the Gospels and they were not quoting the gospels at all.
Papias whose work has vanished mentions “Mark” but there is no reason to think it is our "Mark". Our “Matthew” was not written in Hebrew and has more then “saying” so it is not what Papias was referring to. There is no strong evidence for the validity of the gospels or their content.

Wrong on all counts.

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

[Goat]

There are some indications that some of the early church father's words ended up in the Gospels and they were not quoting the gospels at all.
Papias whose work has vanished mentions “Mark” but there is no reason to think it is our "Mark". Our “Matthew” was not written in Hebrew and has more then “saying” so it is not what Papias was referring to. There is no strong evidence for the validity of the gospels or their content.

Wrong on all counts.

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Both of them are makign claims in the 3rd and 4th centuries respetively. That is evidence that the tradition arose, not actual evidence that the Gospels existed.

Ireneus was also second to late second century, and apparently, the "Gospel of Matthew" we have was written in Greek, and not aremeic. It could very well be that Ireaneas was talking about a different peice of writing, now lost, and it still
doesn't show it was actually written before the second century.

Is that the best you have?

[Cathar1950]

There are some indications that some of the early church father's words ended up in the Gospels and they were not quoting the gospels at all.
Papias whose work has vanished mentions “Mark” but there is no reason to think it is our "Mark". Our “Matthew” was not written in Hebrew and has more then “saying” so it is not what Papias was referring to. There is no strong evidence for the validity of the gospels or their content.

Wrong on all counts.

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Wrong on all interpretation. Eusebius can't be trusted and was willing to say anything for the cause of Christ. The Matthew we have was written in Greek and the one Papias mentions, all we have is what some one else said about Papias, was a collection of sayings of Jesus in Hebrew. The Matthew we have has much more and he used Mark. The Matthew they are referring to may very well have been the Q source. This might even have been the collections of OT sayings they were lifted for Christian use and later used by Mark which didn't understand some of the Hebrew ideas or scriptures do to his and the other's dependence on the LXX. Matthew corrects him. Usually Luke does too or omits it all together. You are presenting speculation or should I say reading someone’s speculation with out considering the objections.

[arayhay]

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.

i am a theists.

analysis is the process of taking apart; synthesis is the process of putting together.

1)
as to the writing of the Gospels, by whom and when. why is this so contentious ?
before the writing of these books there was oral transmission. almost like using a brain like a computer. young Jewish children who wanted to study scripture had to memorize the first 5 books, the Torah if thy were going to succeed or progress.

2)
Ro. 5:6-8 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love for toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

3)
extant source that needs to be taken objectively.

4)
the talmud was recorded some time later and views had become more critical and harsh toward believers in the Messiah call jesus/Yahshua.

5)
the geography is fine, when looked at with an open mind.

6)
i'm not up to date on all the archeology concerning these accounts but i haven't seen anything to contradict Biblical account.

7)
i think that point 7 is erroneous in that christians and Nazarenes are not equivalents. christianity transmutes a sect of Judaism into a new system. Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees ... Acts 24;5 FOR WE HAVE FOUND THIS MAN A PESTILENT FELLOW AND A MOVER OF SEDITION AMONG ALL THE JEWS THROUGHTOUT THE WORLD, AND A RINGLEADER OF THE SECT OF THE NAZARENES:
SECT A GROUP OF PEOPLE FORMING A DISTINCT UNIT WITHIN A LARGER GROUP ...
paul talks of a mystery i Eph. 3:1-9 i.e. the mystery of the gospel, of christ, and the fellowship of this mystery. paul is in prison when he writes this, and he was arrested in Yerusalem in Acts 21:26-40 He had just left Ephesus where there was a riot. and now he's in the pocky. no mention of a NEW religion or anything outside of Judaism by the elders in Yerusalem !

8)
???????????? who cares.

9)
what about it ?

10)
he was not converted. nothing to convert too. christianity does not exist yet.

11)
first of all, again what conversion ? secondly the counsel of Yerusalem was convened because of the conversion of gentles to Judaism. Acts 10 and the subsequent judizing, i.ae. legalistic approach to Torah.
acts 15 does NOT say that the Holy Spirit and we have determined not to lay on you CHRISTIANS ! it simply says YOU ! here is the perfect place to record the BEGINNING of something NEW if indeed something new was being started apart for judaism.

12)
ok

13)
not a convert.
over and over in the Bible, nt we see the people coming to Yahshua by the masses!
read MT 9:9; Mark 2:15; weather it was one, or thousands they came to Him because He was the Jewish Messiah they had been waiting for since Moses spoke of Him in Duet. 13 THOUSANDS accepted Him in Yerusalem. ACTS 21:20; the greek word - myiades, means tens of thousands !

14)
i don't know

[Cmass]

Nice post Achilles! You got 'em all wound up!

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.

However, you are very wrong here. First, your analysis is not an analysis it is simply regurgitation of some myths. Second, and most important, if you are to invoke Occam's Razor you must know that your conclusions are NOT the simplest. Not even close. MINE are! And, by your logic, mine must be the right conclusions:

A huge BANG occurred from which the universe came into being out of nothing. No reason, no person, no God. It just happened. This is much simpler because there is no guessing motivation, no God person. Nothing at all. It just happened. So, I win by invoking the razor.
After the bang, everything now in existence came to be through a series of events driven by physical laws. That's it. Simple as can be, and much more straight forward than all the bizarre, nonsensical Bible stories because there is actual straightforward evidence for what happened unpolluted by thousands of years of handing down stories. I don't have to delve into the complexities of personalities: Why this person got angry and killed that person, why God got mad at this person and destroyed his village, how God decides who will be in his favor etc...etc...etc... All very, very complex stuff with no evidence. It all falls right off the razor and onto the ground.
The simplest explanation is that it all just happened. Therefore I am right.
- Chris

[arayhay]

Nice post Achilles! You got 'em all wound up!

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.

However, you are very wrong here. First, your analysis is not an analysis it is simply regurgitation of some myths. Second, and most important, if you are to invoke Occam's Razor you must know that your conclusions are NOT the simplest. Not even close. MINE are! And, by your logic, mine must be the right conclusions:

A huge BANG occurred from which the universe came into being out of nothing. No reason, no person, no God. It just happened. This is much simpler because there is no guessing motivation, no God person. Nothing at all. It just happened. So, I win by invoking the razor.
After the bang, everything now in existence came to be through a series of events driven by physical laws. That's it. Simple as can be, and much more straight forward than all the bizarre, nonsensical Bible stories because there is actual straightforward evidence for what happened unpolluted by thousands of years of handing down stories. I don't have to delve into the complexities of personalities: Why this person got angry and killed that person, why God got mad at this person and destroyed his village, how God decides who will be in his favor etc...etc...etc... All very, very complex stuff with no evidence. It all falls right off the razor and onto the ground.
The simplest explanation is that it all just happened. Therefore I am right.
- Chris

occams razor calls for as few assumptions as possible. your hypothesis is ALL assumptions.

[Cmass]

occams razor calls for as few assumptions as possible. your hypothesis is ALL assumptions.

.....and your stories are NOT assumptions? LOL!!

Yes, some of my explanation is assumption, but much of it can be backed up by fact. Your explanation is myth based upon stories thousands of years old; most all of it is assumption. For example, snakes don't talk. I can prove this very, very easily. However, you explanation includes talking snakes - and in order for this myth to become reality you must make all sorts of very strange assumptions and the explanation starts to get very complicated. In my explanation there is no need for talking snakes - or any talking animals for that matter. Due to their evolutionary path, they never developed the capacity for human speech. Thats it. Simple.

[arayhay]

occams razor calls for as few assumptions as possible. your hypothesis is ALL assumptions.

.....and your stories are NOT assumptions? LOL!!

Yes, some of my explanation is assumption, but much of it can be backed up by fact. Your explanation is myth based upon stories thousands of years old; most all of it is assumption. For example, snakes don't talk. I can prove this very, very easily. However, you explanation includes talking snakes - and in order for this myth to become reality you must make all sorts of very strange assumptions and the explanation starts to get very complicated. In my explanation there is no need for talking snakes - or any talking animals for that matter. Due to their evolutionary path, they never developed the capacity for human speech. Thats it. Simple.

you don't know what my explanation is.
THAT'S ANOTHER ASSUMPTION on your part.
if you have any facts - put up or shut up !

:yapyap:

[Cmass]

and if you have any facts - put up or shut up !

You win! Your logic is overwhelming and I simply can't challenge it. I have no facts to support evolution. Nothing. Science is wrong & the Bible is right.
Game over.
I choose to shut up.

[arayhay]

and if you have any facts - put up or shut up !

You win! Your logic is overwhelming and I simply can't challenge it. I have no facts to support evolution. Nothing. Science is wrong & the Bible is right.
Game over.
I choose to shut up.

tyvm. THAT WAS EASY !

congradulations on winning the MP3.