The Rise of Christianity Challenge!

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

The Rise of Christianity Challenge!

Post #1

Post by 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.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #171

Post by Cathar1950 »

McCulloch wrote:
McCulloch wrote:This is one way of asking why God would desire worship. Does He need a constant chorus of admirers to tell Him just how wonderful He is?
AB wrote:No He doesn't! You are building in your own ego and way of thinking to define what God is. It is irrelevant to the true God. HEY PEOPLE, YOU GOT TO GET PAST THIS!.. get out of your little box of thinking.
Then maybe His worshipers should stop making these claims:

Wow, I started reading them and got bored. I wonder if God gets tired of being worshiped? How do you really glorify God? What could I do to make God look better?
What does worship even mean and what is the purpose? Is it making us feel better because it seems hard to think God needs to feel better? I did read where the meaning of the word “worship” used in the bible went back to something about doing that which you were created to do or to fulfill your purpose.
This could have both collective and personal meaning or function. I am assuming worship is more then just feeling and must have some behavioral aspects. Is worship a verb?
So I like the story that we were created to be gardeners. So worship would be gardening.
So my way of showing love for God would be growing things.
I hope Cain was not rejected for tilling the soil and it was some thing else he did.
Was the worship God needed from him not acceptable? Did Abel make his bed neater?
So I guess we are back to a needy God. What does God require and what is worship and how is it done and why is it needed. How do you make God look and feel better?


This is all great. Yes Worship Him. HE CREATED US. HE KNOWS US MORE THAN ANYTING. HE CREATED THE WORLD WE LIVE. AND HE CAN REMOVE IT.

I bet you take the word worship and make it a bad thing because of you ego.

BUT THE PLAIN STRATE FACT IS : ... nevermind you will debate it away in your life.
What kind of ego must you have to think God needs your worship, which you fail to explain? Things like he is smarter and made the world and can destroy it sound like fear not worship. Maybe God just wants friends that are like family and it just gives him/her pleasure to see them happy. Maybe it can’t help but be a projection.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #172

Post by Goat »

AB wrote:
goat wrote:
AB wrote:
goat wrote:
AB wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:
Cathar makes perfect sense. What is believed about religion changes over time, What religions believes changes over time.
Regarding "religion" this may be true and probably is. But this has nothing to do with the Gospel of the good news.
But, indeed it does. The 'Gospel of the Good news' has chnaged over time. The interpretation has changed over time.
God doesn't change brother! Yeah! Jesus is Lord! Everyting is alright! Love you brother!
I am sure that it is your opinion that "Jesus is Lord". However, from my faith perspective, "Jesus is Lord" has no meaning. God is God,and Jesus is not.

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #173

Post by achilles12604 »

An attempt to get back to the original op. . . ..




I noticed that there have only been two attempts to provide a logical course of events which accounts for all the variables I listed. Both of these provided a rather sketchy view an didn't account for everything.


Does this mean that so few non-theists are willing to take on their own creations?

They can issue these kinds of challenges but they are exempt from taking them on when it is for the other side?

Or are you guys unwilling to try?
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

Post Reply