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.

[achilles12604]

[S]o is it your turn to explain to us how Christianity began without omitting a single detail.

I don't see why we should not omit any detail. Your approach is like the Creationist god of the gaps approach. If we cannot find an answer to a particular unknown, then by default it must be God's miraculous intervention. That is fallacious reasoning.

You are correct to say it is fallacious reasoning that the natural default position is God's intervention. It's as fallacious as the Atheist saying "if you can't prove that God exists, then the default is that God does not exist and Atheism is true."

However, Achilles is attempting to build a cumulative case. Every piece of evidence you leave on the table by not providing counter evidence remains firmly in the Christian corner.

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.

There are embarrassingly few references by Paul to the human actions of Jesus.

This is to be expected. Paul never met Jesus before His death. We know from Galatians 1 and 2 that Paul received his information about Jesus directly from the key disciples of Jesus with in a few years of Paul's conversion. Not a problem.

3) The writings of Josephus

Josephus wrote about Jewish history to a Roman audience. The few references to Christ and Christianity are either later additions or factual references only to the existence of the early Christians. What needs explaining?

Achilles, is building a case for the rise of Christianity which is a peice of evidence for a larger case for Christ's resurrection and Christianity. So, I believe you do need to explain the references to ..."the tribe of Christians, so called after him[Jesus], has still to this day not disappeared." How did Jesus establish a wide and lasting following amidst persecution?

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

Almost? Where did inerrancy go?

We don't need inerrancy to establish the facts that achilles has listed. Inerrancy is a red herring and irrelevant.

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.

The real issue is how to plug the holes in an hypothesis. Every hypothesis will have holes. Should we assume the God hypothesis?

Can you think of a better hypothesis that best explains ALL the evidence? I think this is the challenge, though I don't want to speak for achilles.


As a side note, Achilles, I was wondering why you didn't include the Roman historian Tacitus. He mentions Christians, Christus from whom the name had its origins and the mysterious superstition breaking out in Judea. It could help your case.

I was trying to make it as easy on them as possible by only including writings and events from very near to the time of Jesus. However if they wish to include Tacitus, I'll give them extra credit points.

[achilles12604]

How do u explain the rise of christianity?

How do u explain the rise of islam?

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

1) the koran being written about 700 C.E.

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.

2) the "hadith" written as an add on to the kuran and the "ijtihad" written by imams that corroborate the divine message of mohammad and confirm his status as a prophet.

3) The writings of Josephus

referr to 2

4) The Historical account presented in the Talmud

the historical account present in history books about mohammad and neighboring nations

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

the geography in the history of islam and mohammad is accurate

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

Archeology has not unproved anything in the koran

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

the beliefs of the very first moslims

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.

I don't know what evidence that is, supposedly jesus's body is in heaven and not around nazareth. Multiple historical accounts confirm the existence of mohammad.

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

same as previous arguments

10) The conversion of Paul

the conversion of thousands of jews and christians of the time to islam.

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

same as above

12) The Martyrdom of James

somebody killed him, so what?

13) The conversion of James

same as above

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.)

martyrdom of the thousands of moslims while conquering lands and spreading islam.

so how exactly are these proofs of a divine religion?

Ok feel free to create your own thread with these points in mind and I will address them. I promise

I will probably learn a lot so please do so. I don't want to address them here as they would get this thread WAAAAY off track.

[achilles12604]

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.

But your conclusion is neither simple nor logical. You simply invent, out of whole cloth, a magical explanation for anything you can't wrap your head around and declare the problem solved.

In fact, you now have to explain where God came from and how God created everything, adding many more unnecessary and illogical steps to your so-called conclusion. Simply waving a magic wand at the problem doesn't make it go away, nor does it become simplified. Introducing the supernatural into the equation makes your conclusion infinitely more complex and less logical than anything we could do in the natural world.

Try again.

No no Cephus. It is time for you to try. Please feel free to do better. After all with all our magic and illogical steps, it should be easy to tie all these pieces together better than we do.

[achilles12604]

"If you can't prove that God does not exist, then the default is that God does exist and theism is true."

You can't prove a negative. That is shifting the burden of proof. Kind of like this entire thread.

I'm not asking you to take on a burden of proving ANYTHING. At least not anything that hasn't been offered before by non-theists. All I am asking is simply for someone, anyone to come up with a complete chain of events which logically explains the existence of said "markers". This isn't so hard is it?

[achilles12604]

Ok. Now I am truely disappointed.

3 pages of posts and not a single non-theist has the ability to take on my challenge. Instead all you have done is complained that we are illogical, and the challenge is not fair.

Well the challenge was fair enough for the Athiests to place upon the Christians, so it fair enough to place back on you. I answered my challenge. Apparently no one here is willing to do the same.

[Goose]

Belief is not the issue here. Would you agree that for me to make the following statement is a fallacy? "If you can't prove that God does not exist, then the default is that God does exist and theism is true." Is that logical? No. See my point?

No, because to assume that something exists without evidence is illogical. To assume that something with no evidence doesn't exist unless, or until, evidence is presented makes perfect sense.

Right, to assume something does or doesn't exist before you look at the evidence is circular reasoning. It goes for theists as well as atheists. You are now the third person to make the assertion that NO evidence exists for God's existence. Logical fallacy! You cannot possibly be aware of ALL possible evidences for God's existence unless you are all-knowing. Are you all-knowing Galph? So to say there is NO evidence is a logical fallacy. A more intellectually honest answer would be to say that I don't feel there is enough or good enough evidence to warrant belief in God's existence. Or something like that.

See the difference? There is no evidence that there is an invisible pink unicorn poking holes in my socks, so I assume one doesn't exist.

I know you want to think there is NO evidence for God's existence. But many believe there is. You may not like the evidence. You may have other explanations for the evidence. You may draw other conclusions than I would from the evidence. But to say there is NO evidence for God's existence is incorrect. Look around this site or troll the internet, there are threads and sites that present arguments and evidence for God's existence.

This, of course, no more proves that god doesn't exist then me not having visited London proves that England doesn't exist, but it does mean that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that god exists, not the person who disagrees with that claim.

The reason we believe that England exists among other things is that we have evidence for it's existence. Some might find that evidence lacking and believe that England doesn't exist. Most will find the evidence compelling enough to believe that England exists. It's the same with the existence of God, some will find it compelling, some won't.

But again, this thread is about trying to find a non-God answer to the rise of Christianity that accounts for the evidence presented. So we are once again off topic with the existence of God.

P.S. I wanted to answer your question. But I don't want to turn this thread into a Does God Exist thing. I've noticed so far that very few people have actually addressed the issues presented. So far it's been hijacked from Islam to a "Prove God Exists" problem. I wonder why?

I answered the question posed on the previous page. Second to last post. I will assume you didn't notice it instead of assuming you ignored it to be petulant.

I wasn't speaking of you. I think you and McCulloch (appologies to anyone else I've missed) are the only ones that have made an attempt to stay on topic and deal with the evidence presented. Though I don't think your answer fully accounts for all the evidence, it was non-the-less a well thought answer.

[Galphanore]

Belief is not the issue here. Would you agree that for me to make the following statement is a fallacy? "If you can't prove that God does not exist, then the default is that God does exist and theism is true." Is that logical? No. See my point?

No, because to assume that something exists without evidence is illogical. To assume that something with no evidence doesn't exist unless, or until, evidence is presented makes perfect sense.

Right, to assume something does or doesn't exist before you look at the evidence is circular reasoning. It goes for theists as well as atheists. You are now the third person to make the assertion that NO evidence exists for God's existence. Logical fallacy! You cannot possibly be aware of ALL possible evidences for God's existence unless you are all-knowing. Are you all-knowing Galph? So to say there is NO evidence is a logical fallacy. A more intellectually honest answer would be to say that I don't feel there is enough or good enough evidence to warrant belief in God's existence. Or something like that.

In this context "No evidence" doesn't imply that no evidence exists, only that none has been presented to me that I find valid. Additionally, I am not making the claim that a god cannot exist. I am making the claim that I do not believe in it. All not believing requires is that I find the evidence uncompelling, not that I have ultimate knowledge. You're attacking explicit atheism, something most atheists do not believe. Or, as you put it, Logical Fallacy! Straw man arguments.

See the difference? There is no evidence that there is an invisible pink unicorn poking holes in my socks, so I assume one doesn't exist.

I know you want to think there is NO evidence for God's existence. But many believe there is. You may not like the evidence. You may have other explanations for the evidence. You may draw other conclusions than I would from the evidence. But to say there is NO evidence for God's existence is incorrect. Look around this site or troll the internet, there are threads and sites that present arguments and evidence for God's existence.

Again, in this context "No evidence" is "no evidence I find acceptable" not "no evidence presented". If someone told me there was an invisible pink unicorn running around and presented vaguely round holes in my socks as proof of this I would say there is no evidence for an IPU, because I find what I have been presented to lack validity.

This, of course, no more proves that god doesn't exist then me not having visited London proves that England doesn't exist, but it does mean that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that god exists, not the person who disagrees with that claim.

The reason we believe that England exists among other things is that we have evidence for it's existence. Some might find that evidence lacking and believe that England doesn't exist. Most will find the evidence compelling enough to believe that England exists. It's the same with the existence of God, some will find it compelling, some won't.

And that's all I was implying. It's still the onus of the theist to present this evidence, not on the atheist to present evidence that god cannot exist.

But again, this thread is about trying to find a non-God answer to the rise of Christianity that accounts for the evidence presented. So we are once again off topic with the existence of God.

P.S. I wanted to answer your question. But I don't want to turn this thread into a Does God Exist thing. I've noticed so far that very few people have actually addressed the issues presented. So far it's been hijacked from Islam to a "Prove God Exists" problem. I wonder why?

I answered the question posed on the previous page. Second to last post. I will assume you didn't notice it instead of assuming you ignored it to be petulant.

I wasn't speaking of you. I think you and McCulloch (appologies to anyone else I've missed) are the only ones that have made an attempt to stay on topic and deal with the evidence presented. Though I don't think your answer fully accounts for all the evidence, it was non-the-less a well thought answer.

Please, show me some of the evidence you think my story does not account for. That is, after all, the purpose of this thread.

[Galphanore]

Ok. Now I am truely disappointed.

3 pages of posts and not a single non-theist has the ability to take on my challenge. Instead all you have done is complained that we are illogical, and the challenge is not fair.

Well the challenge was fair enough for the Athiests to place upon the Christians, so it fair enough to place back on you. I answered my challenge. Apparently no one here is willing to do the same.

Am I invisible? Do my posts not even appear before your eyes? I posted a response to your original challenge, it's the second to last post on the first page and it has not been replied to. Don't claim the high ground and act as if no-one can answer you when someone has.

[Cephus]

No no Cephus. It is time for you to try. Please feel free to do better. After all with all our magic and illogical steps, it should be easy to tie all these pieces together better than we do.

It's already been done. There is no reason to believe in an unseen and unknown deity, the reality is right there for you to see. The problem is, reality isn't emotionally satisfying to some people, they want it to *MEAN* something, they want to *FEEL* good, they're not satisfied with what's real, they need some emotional meaning to it, that's why they invent farsical deities to worship, because they can't accept reality as it comes, they expect it to cater to their emotional needs.

Sorry, reality doesn't give a damn if it makes you feel good. It just is. Deal with it.

[Lotan]

It's already been done. There is no reason to believe in an unseen and unknown deity, the reality is right there for you to see. The problem is, reality isn't emotionally satisfying to some people, they want it to *MEAN* something, they want to *FEEL* good, they're not satisfied with what's real, they need some emotional meaning to it, that's why they invent farsical deities to worship, because they can't accept reality as it comes, they expect it to cater to their emotional needs.

Indeed, achilles' challenge is of the same type raised by folks who claim that Khufu's pyramid couldn't have been built by the Old Kingdom Egyptians without the help of aliens or Atlanteans or whatnot. First one has to invent a mystery and then supply the obvious answer. When the mystery disappears, so does the need for a miraculous solution.