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 am not advocate of replacement theology and clearly the Hebrew writings were written about and to the communities of Israel. There is a diversity of communities that consider themselves Israel and even “the remnant”. In this sense anyone could say or believe they are Israel. There are still those that follow John the dipper. The Ebonite communities are another good example. There are today many varieties in Judaism as well as Christianity. Both have had many influences and have for the past 2000 years evolved together in as much diversity and variation as they started out. Orthodox Christianity is a hybrid.
Or better yet is shows just how crazy you can get when you try to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine at the same time and go so far as to equate a man with God.
But these kinds of ideas go back farther then Israel. The God/man and even the largely royal coronation like descriptions of David and his heirs seem to take on an older tradition very much at home in ancient kingdoms. Some Hebrew writings seem pro-David while others seem pro-Priesthood and pro-Temple and others pro-prophet. Some are just the opposite. Some times God is a man of war other times the judge of all the earth, sometimes the storm god and other times the God of mercy.
Sometimes Israel represents God other times he is angry because no one will listen to his prophets, kings or priests, depending on who did the writing. Much like the Christian writings. That shouldn’t surprise us they used the Greek Septuagint and maybe a little help from Homer, Josephus and others. Sometimes he is mad because they do listen to his priests, kings and prophets.

[achilles12604]

Come on.. put up or shut up. Give evidence, not pure speculation. Someone mentioning the gospels would be an indication that gospels were written. It might not be evidence that the Gospel they mention would be the one we currently call that though. Someone actually quoting from a Gospel would be proper evidence.

Or, we could have an intact fragment of a gospel that was found in a situation where it can be accurately dated, and is large enough that it can not be another
piece of writing.

So, what are the earliest reference to the gospels? What is the earliest quote from a gospel by a church father (not a mere refrence to them)? Come on.. lets see the actual evidence, and not mere speculation.

put up or shut up?

Alrighty then . . .

Galatians 2:7
7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

Galatians is dated 50-60 CE by ECW.

Good enough or shall I find more?

The writings of Ignatius dated 105-115 CE by ECW

16. The tree is revealed by its fruit; so they who profess themselves to be Christians are known by what they do.

Immediately following this is a foot note . . .

Compare with: "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance." (Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8); "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:18, 20); "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples." (John 15:8)

But wait . . . . there's more

11. How then was our Savior revealed to the world? A star shone in heaven, beyond all the other stars, and its light was inexpressible, and its novelty struck terror into men's minds. All the rest of the stars, together with the sun and moon, were the chorus to this star, but that one sent out its light exceedingly above them all.
12. And men began to be troubled to think how this novel star came so unlike to all the others.

Another footnote :

For the story of the wise men and the star, see Matthew 2:2-10.

My links

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
and of course the bible for the first one.

Both Ignatius and Polycarp are second century. Not only that, but Ignatious, although has a letter, did not mention a gospel./

So, galatians is dated 50-60 by someone. On what grounds. What is his evidence?
Is there a reference from OUTSIDE the gospel about it? Is there a quote FROM outside a gospel that references it? Nope.

As for polycarp, that is second century also. It does not specifically mention a gospel by name. Although some of his words are in the Gospels, can you show me that he took them from a Gospel? He didn't say he did.

Also, Polycarp was writing between 120 and 140 c.e... that is second century. I asked for a first century quotation. Nope.. you struck out so far.

I will also point out that there is some doubt about the veracity of the letters from Ignatious. And also, the 'estimated date' , while early second century, is still second century.

Nope. stuck out fully so far.

I think I have made enough of a point.

Yes.. the point you made is that dating the gospels is not based on physical evidence at all.. but pure speculation. There are no external references to the gospels until the second century. From a minimalists point of view, there are no surviving references from outside the gospels to the gospels until Ignatious, and that one is vague.. where it really wasn't an exact quote. The lettes from Ignatious is also disputed by a minority group.

Polycarp is not disputed, but is already 1/3rd into the second century.

I doubt that even most secular scholars would agree that physical evidence is the only, or even the BEST evidence from which to date a Gospel. Reading through several of the ECW non-theist reviews, dating is usually done by other means.

Example: Mark

The date of the Gospel is uncertain. The external evidence is not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much. St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and St. Jerome signify that it was written before St. Peter's death. The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (A.D. 38-40). The "Paschal Chronicle" assigns it to A.D. 40, and the "Chronicle" of Eusebius to the third year of Claudius (A.D. 43). Possibly these early dates may be only a deduction from the tradition that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A.D. 42 (cf. Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", II, xiv; Jer., "De Vir. Ill.", i). St. Irenæus, on the other hand, seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul (meta de ten touton exodon--"Adv. Hær.", III, i). Papias, too, asserting that Mark wrote according to his recollection of Peter's discourses, has been taken to imply that Peter was dead. This, however, does not necessarily follow from the words of Papias, for Peter might have been absent from Rome. Besides, Clement of Alexandria (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv) seems to say that Peter was alive and in Rome at the time Mark wrote, though he gave the Evangelist no help in his work. There is left, therefore, the testimony of St. Irenæus against that of all the other early witnesses; and it is an interesting fact that most present-day Rationalist and Protestant scholars prefer to follow Irenæus and accept the later date for Mark's Gospel, though they reject almost unanimously the saint's testimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in favour of the priority of Matthew's Gospel to Mark's. Various attempts have been made to explain the passage in Irenæus so as to bring him into agreement with the other early authorities (see, e.g. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 76-78; Patrizi, "De Evang.", I, 38), but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be regarded as correct. It seems much more reasonable, however, to believe that Irenæus was mistaken than that all the other authorities are in error, and hence the external evidence would show that Mark wrote before Peter's death (A.D. 64 or 67).

From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place. On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts, xiv, 26; xv, 3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

Notice that this review uses quotes from other sources, internal and external evidence to date the Gospel. I didn't see him use a physical documentation ANYWHERE in his argument.

Another review,

The third-century Chester Beatty papyrus fragments collected under the label "P45" comprise the first copy of the Gospel of Mark. It contains fragments of Mark 4-8, 11-12 but also Matt 20-21, 25; Luke 6, 9-14; John 10; and Luke's Acts 4-17. P45 is so late we may as well defer to the Codex Sinaiticus, or even a modern critical-edition Bible.

Although we do not have the early texts, we do have early textual witnesses, in the form of quotations and whole-scale incorporations.

There is a wide consensus among NT scholars that the Gospels under the names of Matthew and Luke are expanded revisions of Mark. Those two gospels are much better attested; they exist in several papyri dating from the second century and were referenced by Marcion, Valentinus, and Justin the Martyr at that time. This makes Matthew and Luke the two earliest witnesses to Mark, and very well-attested witnesses at that.

Notice that this review (non-theistic) begins with 1 paragraph about lack of physical evidence, and then proceeds to discuss multiple pages of external and internal evidence.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/Mark/

So goat let me ask you a question.


If so many scholars (both secular and religious) can manage to place value on these items and interpolate their opinions of Mark's dating from them, how is it you claim physical evidence is the only kind worth examining? Or actually let me quote you exactly. . .

Yes.. the point you made is that dating the gospels is not based on physical evidence at all.. but pure speculation.

Physical evidence or pure speculation? Those are my only two choices?

[achilles12604]

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

I have really been missing you lately CMass. Where have you been?

Yes. You must be right because you are right.

[Goat]

Physical evidence or pure speculation? Those are my only two choices?

That IS apparently the choice that Easyrider was showing about Q.

However, there isn't even a REFERENCE to the gospels from outside the gospels before the second century. That does have implications.

[AB]

The Ebonite communities are another good example. There are today many varieties in Judaism as well as Christianity. Both have had many influences and have for the past 2000 years evolved together in as much diversity and variation as they started out. Orthodox Christianity is a hybrid.
Or better yet is shows just how crazy you can get when you try to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine at the same time and go so far as to equate a man with God.
.

Nice leap there. You talk about how various "religions" can vary through time.. and even put the "evolution" word on it. And then you leap way out of that context and claim its crazy to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Sorry, no dice. Doesn't make sense.

But if you are saying human religion tends pervert the true message I agree.

The true message that needs to be hear is; Jesus is Lord. And we now have a choice for eternity because of Jesus. And Jesus will be coming back.

[achilles12604]

Physical evidence or pure speculation? Those are my only two choices?

That IS apparently the choice that Easyrider was showing about Q.

However, there isn't even a REFERENCE to the gospels from outside the gospels before the second century. That does have implications.

Considering the amount of writings we have from that era, the only implications this has is that reading and writing wern't common place, and stationary wasn't available at the local Office Depot either.

[arayhay]

The Ebonite communities are another good example. There are today many varieties in Judaism as well as Christianity. Both have had many influences and have for the past 2000 years evolved together in as much diversity and variation as they started out. Orthodox Christianity is a hybrid.
Or better yet is shows just how crazy you can get when you try to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine at the same time and go so far as to equate a man with God.
.

Nice leap there. You talk about how various "religions" can vary through time.. and even put the "evolution" word on it. And then you leap way out of that context and claim its crazy to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Sorry, no dice. Doesn't make sense.

But if you are saying human religion tends pervert the true message I agree.

The true message that needs to be hear is; Jesus is Lord. And we now have a choice for eternity because of Jesus. And Jesus will be coming back.

why did what i typed disappear when i clicked preview?

[Goat]

The Ebonite communities are another good example. There are today many varieties in Judaism as well as Christianity. Both have had many influences and have for the past 2000 years evolved together in as much diversity and variation as they started out. Orthodox Christianity is a hybrid.
Or better yet is shows just how crazy you can get when you try to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine at the same time and go so far as to equate a man with God.
.

Nice leap there. You talk about how various "religions" can vary through time.. and even put the "evolution" word on it. And then you leap way out of that context and claim its crazy to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Sorry, no dice. Doesn't make sense.

But if you are saying human religion tends pervert the true message I agree.

The true message that needs to be hear is; Jesus is Lord. And we now have a choice for eternity because of Jesus. And Jesus will be coming back.

Cathar makes perfect sense. What is believed about religion changes over time, What religions believes changes over time.

As for Jesus coming back.. I will discuss that with him when he comes back. You see, according to my beliefs, we have eternity without Jesus as a middle man.
God is not so needy as to insist that you have to recite certain magic words to be acceptable to God.

[Cathar1950]

The Ebonite communities are another good example. There are today many varieties in Judaism as well as Christianity. Both have had many influences and have for the past 2000 years evolved together in as much diversity and variation as they started out. Orthodox Christianity is a hybrid.
Or better yet is shows just how crazy you can get when you try to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine at the same time and go so far as to equate a man with God.
.

Nice leap there. You talk about how various "religions" can vary through time.. and even put the "evolution" word on it. And then you leap way out of that context and claim its crazy to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Sorry, no dice. Doesn't make sense.

But if you are saying human religion tends pervert the true message I agree.

The true message that needs to be hear is; Jesus is Lord. And we now have a choice for eternity because of Jesus. And Jesus will be coming back.

I think it is obvious that both Judaism and Christianity evolved or changes.
I don’t see it as a corruption of a truth handed down. There are developments.
Eusebius the father of Church history and the myth of perfect beginnings promoted the idea that there was a perfect first message and it has been corrupted. The facts seem to show that there were a variety of expressions and beliefs where all sides were using the same writings and creating there own from the late first century and second century on.

[arayhay]

The Ebonite communities are another good example. There are today many varieties in Judaism as well as Christianity. Both have had many influences and have for the past 2000 years evolved together in as much diversity and variation as they started out. Orthodox Christianity is a hybrid.
Or better yet is shows just how crazy you can get when you try to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine at the same time and go so far as to equate a man with God.
.

Nice leap there. You talk about how various "religions" can vary through time.. and even put the "evolution" word on it. And then you leap way out of that context and claim its crazy to hold that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Sorry, no dice. Doesn't make sense.

But if you are saying human religion tends pervert the true message I agree.

The true message that needs to be hear is; Jesus is Lord. And we now have a choice for eternity because of Jesus. And Jesus will be coming back.

the TRUE message thing has some wholes in it.
for one thing jesus, the name above ALL names wasn't His name. His real name is Yahshua! this should be a problem, but it's not for christians.
secondly; lord in hebrew is ba'al, do a search on any Bible software on this and you'll see the ba'al is one of the Bad guys. so to call God lord is not consistant with the biblical expression He gives us.
yes we all have a chaice for eternity because of what Yahshua did, but ONLY in relationship to Israel and it's King. :censored:
not the most popular chaice in history.
i hope you know where He's coming back too.

Yerusalem!!!

for His people Israel and those that are grafted in. Ro. chapters 9- 11