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.

[Goose]

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.

Galph, before you get upset, can I point out that you didn't actually do what achilles had requested for this thread. He asked you to address the evidence and come up with a non-God theory for the rise of Christianity. Technically, you didn't do this. In fact, you didn't even really touch the evidence presented. So I don't think achilles really owes you a response. But I'll give you some reasons why I believe your story does not account for all the evidence as I mentioned.

Ok, try this on for size. About two thousand years ago there were many prophets wandering around preaching their various doctrines believing themselves to be the holders of true wisdom. One of them preached about a being that has since become known as Jesus of Nazareth, and described the events of this beings life on another realm of existence as well as making the claim that this person, Jesus, had sacrificed to save humanity from it's self. He used parables and stories to get his point across, and described the areas that this person traveled through with similar names and descriptions to real locations to make them easier to understand.

You've got an immediate problem here. If there were many prophets wondering around preaching true wisdom like Christ, then we could reasonably expect there to be many world religions equal to that of Christianity. If preaching true wisdom and love thy neighbor is all it takes to found a major world religion in the face of persecution then we should have many competing religions rising from the Middle East on the same scale as Christianity. These religions should also have an equal or greater amount of evidence and attestation as to what we find in Christianity. Yet we don't see this do we.

Some people accepted this doctrine because it made them feel good and they understood the parables, others believed more fully and thought the events had occurred within the real world and not in another realm. More people related, over the years, to the belief in a real person then in the belief that the events happened in another realm and so Christian stories that viewed him as a real person become more prominent,

You've got another problem. "Feeling good" isn't a strong enough motivator to account for the conversion of :

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

In the midst of persecution and possible death from accusations of blasphemy.

10) The conversion of Paul

An ememy of Christianity. He hated Christians before his conversion. He persecuted and was involved in the deaths of Christians, as we see with Stephen.

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

Again, in spite of persecution and possible death.

12) The Martyrdom of James

13) The conversion of James

A skeptic prior to Jesus's death.

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.)

People aren't generally willing to be persecuted and even die if needed just because a wise teacher was wondering the countryside professing true wisdom that made people "feel good."

Your story is in a serious state of lacking explanatory power and scope. It's possible that it could account for the initial spark of Christianity, but unlikely to account for the conversion of Jews, sceptics, and enemies. Or the amount of textural evidence we have for Christianity. You need to either alter your story to something stronger or develop a seperate story in addition to account for these conversions and the multiple recorded attestations we have of Christianity. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

this was further supported by the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine I in 318 CE, during which the roman empire adopted Christianity and merged it with some other beliefs of the time. It was decided at that council that the stories would be about a real being and resulted in the creation of a unified Christian doctrine that could be more easily spread throughout the empire.

Ok, this is irrelevant. We are dealing with early Christianity, not post Nicea Christianity. You were specifically asked by achilles to address the evidence before the Council of Nicea here:

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.

All the things you are insisting be answered are about fictional events and can easily be explained as such.

This statement is an avoidance of history and your perspective. I don't think any of the evidence achilles presented could be dismissed entirely as fictional events. Some of it could be questioned, yes, such as the dating of the Gospels.

Let's see you come up with something that addresses all the evidence presented, after all, that was the challenge given. Have fun.

[WelshBoy]

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.

Another famous version of this argument is:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Douglas Adams


Apologies to the Christians, I'm only taking this further off topic...

[Goose]

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.

Another famous version of this argument is:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Douglas Adams


Apologies to the Christians, I'm only taking this further off topic...

Hey, no apologies needed. We are used to skeptics taking this and other threads off topic. Otherwise you have to deal with the issues presented. So, no worries my friend.

[Galphanore]

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.

Galph, before you get upset, can I point out that you didn't actually do what achilles had requested for this thread. He asked you to address the evidence and come up with a non-God theory for the rise of Christianity. Technically, you didn't do this. In fact, you didn't even really touch the evidence presented. So I don't think achilles really owes you a response. But I'll give you some reasons why I believe your story does not account for all the evidence as I mentioned.

On the contrary, my story fits the evidence better then the god theory, and he didn't say no-one answered him in a way he'd accept, he said no-one tried.

Ok, try this on for size. About two thousand years ago there were many prophets wandering around preaching their various doctrines believing themselves to be the holders of true wisdom. One of them preached about a being that has since become known as Jesus of Nazareth, and described the events of this beings life on another realm of existence as well as making the claim that this person, Jesus, had sacrificed to save humanity from it's self. He used parables and stories to get his point across, and described the areas that this person traveled through with similar names and descriptions to real locations to make them easier to understand.

You've got an immediate problem here. If there were many prophets wondering around preaching true wisdom like Christ, then we could reasonably expect there to be many world religions equal to that of Christianity. If preaching true wisdom and love thy neighbor is all it takes to found a major world religion in the face of persecution then we should have many competing religions rising from the Middle East on the same scale as Christianity. These religions should also have an equal or greater amount of evidence and attestation as to what we find in Christianity. Yet we don't see this do we.

On the contrary, cults form and die constantly. There is no reason to suppose that there would be numerous successful ones in the same time period. It would be much better to suppose that every now and then one becomes successful enough to become a religion. About two thousand years ago it was Christianity. About four hundred years after that it was Islam, and most recently it was Scientology.

Some people accepted this doctrine because it made them feel good and they understood the parables, others believed more fully and thought the events had occurred within the real world and not in another realm. More people related, over the years, to the belief in a real person then in the belief that the events happened in another realm and so Christian stories that viewed him as a real person become more prominent,

You've got another problem. "Feeling good" isn't a strong enough motivator to account for the conversion of :

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

In the midst of persecution and possible death from accusations of blasphemy.

10) The conversion of Paul

An ememy of Christianity. He hated Christians before his conversion. He persecuted and was involved in the deaths of Christians, as we see with Stephen.

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

Again, in spite of persecution and possible death.

12) The Martyrdom of James

13) The conversion of James

A skeptic prior to Jesus's death.

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.)

People aren't generally willing to be persecuted and even die if needed just because a wise teacher was wondering the countryside professing true wisdom that made people "feel good."

Your story is in a serious state of lacking explanatory power and scope. It's possible that it could account for the initial spark of Christianity, but unlikely to account for the conversion of Jews, sceptics, and enemies. Or the amount of textural evidence we have for Christianity. You need to either alter your story to something stronger or develop a seperate story in addition to account for these conversions and the multiple recorded attestations we have of Christianity. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

First, you are assuming that those events are fact and not a part of the story, and secondly, as can easily be seen by many modern day suicide cults, "feeling good" is nearly all that is needed. That and a charismatic leader can get groups of people to willingly give up their lives. All the textual information on early Christianity comes from the fictional story we are referring to and the stories by those early believers (Just look at Mormonism to see how accurate believers are when keeping their wittings factual), with one acception; The two, very likely forged, mentions of Jesus in the wittings of Flavius Josephus.

this was further supported by the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine I in 318 CE, during which the roman empire adopted Christianity and merged it with some other beliefs of the time. It was decided at that council that the stories would be about a real being and resulted in the creation of a unified Christian doctrine that could be more easily spread throughout the empire.

Ok, this is irrelevant. We are dealing with early Christianity, not post Nicea Christianity. You were specifically asked by achilles to address the evidence before the Council of Nicea here:

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.

Bringing up the Council of Nicea is very important when discussing early Christianity, to exclude it is to ignore a major factor. Before the council there was no unified doctrine, just splinter cults. The Council of Nicea is where this fictional story was compiled from the many different versions being held as true by the disparate cults spread around at the time.

All the things you are insisting be answered are about fictional events and can easily be explained as such.

This statement is an avoidance of history and your perspective. I don't think any of the evidence achilles presented could be dismissed entirely as fictional events. Some of it could be questioned, yes, such as the dating of the Gospels.

I am only questioning the historicity of the words written in the Gospels and about them by people who believed they were fact, not history. It's extremely likely, from examining the two short paragraphs that mention Jesus, that the only non-believing mention of the events in this story was forged at a later time by Christians!

Let's see you come up with something that addresses all the evidence presented, after all, that was the challenge given. Have fun.

Already did, thanks.

[Cogitoergosum]

Galphanore, well said, i'm amazed how people think that converting or dying for an idea makes that idea true and divine. And then they refuse to admit that ANYBODY will convert to ANYTHING that will make him feel good about HIMSELF.
examples are endless, mormonism, davidian brach, temple of the people, FLDS....
Are those all divine religion? what makes christians so special in what they believe?

[Galphanore]

Galphanore, well said, i'm amazed how people think that converting or dying for an idea makes that idea true and divine. And then they refuse to admit that ANYBODY will convert to ANYTHING that will make him feel good about HIMSELF.
examples are endless, mormonism, davidian brach, temple of the people, FLDS....
Are those all divine religion? what makes christians so special in what they believe?

I think the most apropos example is Islam. If dieing for your beliefs makes them divine then Islam far outshines Christianity in that regard. They not only hold their beliefs in the face of someone else killing them, they willingly arrange their own deaths in the name of their religion. It is actually very easy to convince people to believe anything once you convince them they have a soul and that it's in jeopardy. If you haven't seen it yet I advise the movie The God Who Wasn't There.

[Cogitoergosum]

What is even funnier,is that mujahidin in afghanistan while fighting the russians in the 80's had actual plastic keys worn around their necks that they believed are the keys to the gates of heaven after martyrdom. the keys were imprented "made in taiwan" but heck GOD works in mysterious ways, right?. lol

[Goose]

You guys done pattin' each other on the back, yet? We're not done here.

On the contrary, my story fits the evidence better then the god theory, and he didn't say no-one answered him in a way he'd accept, he said no-one tried.

I'll concede that your story could account for some of the evidence. Such as the conversion of the disciples and Christians before Christ's death. But you've got more problems I'm afraid. You've left evidence on the table unattended to. Again you are lacking explanatory power and scope. All you've really done is say Jesus wasn't just another wise teacher He was special, He had "charismatic leadership."

On the contrary, cults form and die constantly.

Agreed. But world religions with humble beginings that flourish in the face of persecution in their early years are hard to come by.

There is no reason to suppose that there would be numerous successful ones in the same time period.

Agreed. There must have been something special about Christianity. Charismatic leadership, perhaps?

It would be much better to suppose that every now and then one becomes successful enough to become a religion. About two thousand years ago it was Christianity. About four hundred years after that it was Islam, and most recently it was Scientology.

I think you are dismissing how difficult it is to get a religion up and started. Especially one that is being persecuted in it's earliest period. Your "every now and then" theory is dependant upon luck, chance, being in the right place at the right time, etc. It's got an element of ad hocness to it. It's weak.

You've got another problem. "Feeling good" isn't a strong enough motivator to account for the conversion of :

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

In the midst of persecution and possible death from accusations of blasphemy.

10) The conversion of Paul

An enemy of Christianity. He hated Christians before his conversion. He persecuted and was involved in the deaths of Christians, as we see with Stephen.

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

Again, in spite of persecution and possible death.

12) The Martyrdom of James

13) The conversion of James

A skeptic prior to Jesus's death.

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.)

People aren't generally willing to be persecuted and even die if needed just because a wise teacher was wondering the countryside professing true wisdom that made people "feel good."

Your story is in a serious state of lacking explanatory power and scope. It's possible that it could account for the initial spark of Christianity, but unlikely to account for the conversion of Jews, sceptics, and enemies. Or the amount of textural evidence we have for Christianity. You need to either alter your story to something stronger or develop a seperate story in addition to account for these conversions and the multiple recorded attestations we have of Christianity. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

First, you are assuming that those events are fact and not a part of the story,

If you want to dispute those events then feel free. So far you haven't done so.

and secondly, as can easily be seen by many modern day suicide cults,

Christianty is not a suicide cult. Sorry. There is a fundamental difference between voluntarily taking your own life and allowing your life to be taken or enduring persecution for what you sincerely believe.

"feeling good" is nearly all that is needed. That and a charismatic leader can get groups of people to willingly give up their lives.

You're "charismatic leadership" hypothesis is problematic. Here are just a few things it doesn't adequetly account for.

1. The real growth of early Christianity didn't occur until after Jesus's death. He was no longer there to cast His charisma. Jews converted despite of persecution and possible death though Jesus wasn't there to cast His spell. How do you explain this?

2. The apostles may have become Christians because of Jesus's charisma, yes. But they knew He had been brutally beaten, and humiliatingly crucified. He was dead. Do you really think that Christ's residual charisma was enough to carry the disciples. They were unorganized, afraid, heart broken, and had just lost their leader. Who gave them the motivation to propagate their master's teachings in the face of persecution and possible death from accusations of blasphemy after Christs's death? Who was their charismatic leader now?

3. Charismatic leadership can account for the conversion of gullible people, yes. But James the brother of Jesus was a sceptic. It's rare for sceptics to convert to a suicide cult is it not? It's rare for a sceptic to join a religion that is based only on the charisma of it's leader, then be willing to even die if necessary, is it not? How do you explain this?

4. Paul was a persecutor of the Christians. He had a reputation amongst the Christians, they were afraid of him. He hated the Christians and was presumably involved in their deaths, Stephen is an example. Your charisma theory goes flop on this one because Paul never met Jesus before Jesus's death. In fact, Paul's conversion was completely separate from anything to do with the apostles or Jesus. Jesus never had a chance to win Paul with His charisma. Paul went from being a persecutor of Christians to becoming one of the greatest propagators of the faith. So how does your charisma theory apply here?


That's enough for now. I think you've got some work to do.

Bringing up the Council of Nicea is very important when discussing early Christianity, to exclude it is to ignore a major factor. Before the council there was no unified doctrine, just splinter cults. The Council of Nicea is where this fictional story was compiled from the many different versions being held as true by the disparate cults spread around at the time.

It's a major factor for your argument, that's all. You were asked by achilles to give an explanation for the rise of Christianity before the Council of N. But I can see where you feel you need the Council of N. for your argument. Personally I could couldn't care less about the C of N. Take it if you need it.

At any rate, your history is a little hazy. The Council of Nicea was called to deal with the heretic Arius. To have a vote on the divinity of Christ. Of the several hundred Bishops in attendance it was almost unanimous in favor of Christ's divinity.

All the textual information on early Christianity comes from the fictional story we are referring to and the stories by those early believers (Just look at Mormonism to see how accurate believers are when keeping their wittings factual), with one acception; The two, very likely forged, mentions of Jesus in the wittings of Flavius Josephus.

I am only questioning the historicity of the words written in the Gospels and about them by people who believed they were fact, not history. It's extremely likely, from examining the two short paragraphs that mention Jesus, that the only non-believing mention of the events in this story was forged at a later time by Christians!

You're talking about the TF by Josephus? I'll conceded that references to Christs divinity and resurrection are likely interpolations, but not the entire passage such as references to Christs existence, death, His followers that didn't disappear. If you want to address the Gospels and other books of the NT, go right ahead.

I think you've got some more work to do to account for all the evidence presented. And find a theory that best fits all the evidence.

BTW, every time you make reference to Islam, Mormonism, etc, you are not addressing the issue. Drawing comparsions to Islam and suicide cults in no way diminishes the evidence for the rise of Christianity. It simply says there could be other religions with a valid claim. We can deal with that in another thread by weighing the evidence for and against. Then drawing a conclusion in favour of the religion with the heaviest and most convincing evidence. That would be the rational conclusion. All you are doing is demonstrating you do not want to address the mountain of evidence. But I can understand if you don't want to.

On a personal note, you are making a valiant effort and I commend you for that!

[Galphanore]

On the contrary, my story fits the evidence better then the god theory, and he didn't say no-one answered him in a way he'd accept, he said no-one tried.

I'll concede that your story could account for some of the evidence. Such as the conversion of the disciples and Christians before Christ's death. But you've got more problems I'm afraid. You've left evidence on the table unattended to. Again you are lacking explanatory power and scope. All you've really done is say Jesus wasn't just another wise teacher He was special, He had "charismatic leadership."

You incorrectly assume that I was describing Jesus when I made my story. Read it again, I said that there were many preachers and "One of them preached about a being that has since become known as Jesus of Nazareth, and described the events of this beings life on another realm of existence as well as making the claim that this person, Jesus, had sacrificed to save humanity from it's self." I am of the opinion that Jesus is a mythological character created by this Charismatic preacher, and that this preacher lived some time between 60 BCE and 60 CE. Jesus wasn't "just another wise teacher" or "special", he was a character used by a charismatic teacher to get his point across. I'll not deny that there are people charismatic enough to get large numbers of people behind them, but not all of them are religious and not all of them are right.

On the contrary, cults form and die constantly.

Agreed. But world religions with humble beggings that flourish in the face of persecution in their early years are hard to come by.

Correct, but that does not make them divine. Just effective memes.

There is no reason to suppose that there would be numerous successful ones in the same time period.

Agreed. There must have been something special about Christianity. Charismatic leadership, perhaps?

Yes, charismatic leadership and an effective self propagating meme. That's all it takes to start a new religion, again, however, that does not make the religion correct or divine, only effective.

It would be much better to suppose that every now and then one becomes successful enough to become a religion. About two thousand years ago it was Christianity. About four hundred years after that it was Islam, and most recently it was Scientology.

I think you are dismissing how difficult it is to get a religion up and started. Especially one that is being persecuted in it's earliest period. Your "every now and then" theory is dependant upon luck, chance, being in the right place at the right time, etc. It's got an element of ad hocness to it. It's weak.

Again, just because it is difficult to start a religion that later becomes a major influence in the world doesn't mean those religions have anything more then a fictional basis, their are a number of contradictory religions that show this. Our unnamed charismatic preacher used stories about this "Jesus" as a way to help his followers understand the right way to live their lives. He said that we should desire to live like "Jesus" did, without ever needing such a being to exist.

You've got another problem. "Feeling good" isn't a strong enough motivator to account for the conversion of :

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

In the midst of persecution and possible death from accusations of blasphemy.

10) The conversion of Paul

An enemy of Christianity. He hated Christians before his conversion. He persecuted and was involved in the deaths of Christians, as we see with Stephen.

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

Again, in spite of persecution and possible death.

12) The Martyrdom of James
13) The conversion of James

A skeptic prior to Jesus's death.

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.)

People aren't generally willing to be persecuted and even die if needed just because a wise teacher was wondering the countryside professing true wisdom that made people "feel good."

Your story is in a serious state of lacking explanatory power and scope. It's possible that it could account for the initial spark of Christianity, but unlikely to account for the conversion of Jews, sceptics, and enemies. Or the amount of textural evidence we have for Christianity. You need to either alter your story to something stronger or develop a seperate story in addition to account for these conversions and the multiple recorded attestations we have of Christianity. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

First, you are assuming that those events are fact and not a part of the story,

If you want to dispute those events then feel free. So far you haven't done so.

My entire story is based on the premise that they are fictional, not factual, and you have not presented any evidence that disputes that. The absolute lack of any coobrative historical evidence for events, such as the gathering of "five thousand men , besides women and children"(Matthew 14:13-21) on a lake shore where they were all feed by a preacher from what he had with him, leads more credence to the mythological origins of the story then to the factual ones.

and secondly, as can easily be seen by many modern day suicide cults,

Christianty is not a suicide cult. Sorry. There is a fundamental difference between voluntarily taking your own life and allowing your life to be taken or enduring persecution for what you sincerely believe.

Yes, voluntarily taking your own life requires a far greater belief that what you are being told is the absolute truth. Even people willing to maintain their beliefs in the face of being killed for them may not be willing to go out and do something that will result in their death, such as suicide bombers.

"feeling good" is nearly all that is needed. That and a charismatic leader can get groups of people to willingly give up their lives.

You're "charismatic leadership" hypothesis is problematic. Here are just a few things it doesn't adequately account for.

1. The real growth of early Christianity didn't occur until after Jesus's death. He was no longer there to cast His charisma. Jews converted despite of persecution and possible death though Jesus wasn't there to cast His spell. How do you explain this?

2. The apostles may have become Christians because of Jesus's charisma, yes. But they knew He had been brutally beaten, and humiliatingly crucified. He was dead. Do you really think that Christ's residual charisma was enough to carry the disciples. They were unorganized, afraid, heart broken, and had just lost their leader. Who gave them the motivation to propagate their master's teachings in the face of persecution and possible death from accusations of blasphemy after Christs's death? Who was their charismatic leader now?

These two are based on your faulty assumption that I was describing Jesus when I was talking about a charismatic preacher.

3. Charismatic leadership can account for the conversion of gullible people, yes. But James the brother of Jesus was a sceptic. It's rare for sceptics to convert to a suicide cult is it not? It's rare for a sceptic to join a religion that is based only on the charisma of it's leader, then be willing to even die if necessary, is it not? How do you explain this?

Yes, skeptics do occasionally join suicide cults. Many atheists, even today, become adherents of various religions after long being skeptical of them. This does not prove that the religion in question is correct, only that the person has become convinced by what they believe are valid arguments.

4. Paul was a persecutor of the Christians. He had a reputation amongst the Christians, they were afraid of him. He hated the Christians and was presumably involved in their deaths, Stephen is an example. Your charisma theory goes flop on this one because Paul never met Jesus before Jesus's death. In fact, Paul's conversion was completely separate from anything to do with the apostles or Jesus. Jesus never had a chance to win Paul with His charisma. Paul went from being a persecutor of Christians to becoming one of the greatest propagators of the faith. So how does your charisma theory apply here?

Again, this assumes Jesus what the Charismatic Preacher in question. Also, once an effective meme has been established it takes far less charisma to spread it. You have other followers to help with their testimonials as well as more established doctrine to use to further aid this. If the charismatic leader already answered many of the common questions, then many others can use his answers.

That's enough for now. I think you've got some work to do.

Not really. Most of your disagreements above this point are based on the incorrect assumption that I was referring to Jesus when I spoke of our original preacher. I find the evidence that Jesus was a mythological construct used to express a point, similar to Atlantis, far more compelling then the evidence that he was a real being.

Bringing up the Council of Nicea is very important when discussing early Christianity, to exclude it is to ignore a major factor. Before the council there was no unified doctrine, just splinter cults. The Council of Nicea is where this fictional story was compiled from the many different versions being held as true by the disparate cults spread around at the time.

It's a major factor for your argument, that's all. You were asked by achilles to give an explanation for the rise of Christianity before the Council of N. But I can see where you feel you need the Council of N. for your argument. Personally I could couldn't care less about the C of N. Take it if you need it.

At any rate, your history is a little hazy. The Council of Nicea was called to deal with the heretic Arius. To have a vote on the divinity of Christ. Of the several hundred Bishops in attendance it was almost unanimous in favor of Christ's divinity.

It was also the place where it was decided which of the existing gospels would be accepted as cannon and which would not, which is all I used it for.

All the textual information on early Christianity comes from the fictional story we are referring to and the stories by those early believers (Just look at Mormonism to see how accurate believers are when keeping their wittings factual), with one acception; The two, very likely forged, mentions of Jesus in the wittings of Flavius Josephus.

I am only questioning the historicity of the words written in the Gospels and about them by people who believed they were fact, not history. It's extremely likely, from examining the two short paragraphs that mention Jesus, that the only non-believing mention of the events in this story was forged at a later time by Christians!

You're talking about the TF by Josephus? I'll conceded that references to Christs divinity and resurrection are likely interpolations, but not the entire passage such as references to Christs existence, death, His followers that didn't disappear. If you want to address the Gospels and other books of the NT, go right ahead.

If you remove the interpolations all you are left with is the acknowledgment that many of his followers believed Jesus existed, not that he actually did and not that any other secular sources acknowledged his existence. I already told you that many of those who heard the parables of our Charismatic Preacher thought he was referring to an existent being in our reality, it was a part of my original explanation.

I think you've got some more work to do to account for all the evidence presented. And find a theory that best fits all the evidence.

Please, continue to dispute my points. I find this to be a very interesting thread.

BTW, every time you make reference to Islam, Mormonism, etc, you are not addressing the issue. Drawing comparsions to Islam and suicide cults in no way diminishes the evidence for the rise of Christianity. It simply says there could be other religions with a valid claim. We can deal with that in another thread by weighing the evidence for and against. Then drawing a conclusion in favour of the religion with the heaviest and most convincing evidence. That would be the rational conclusion. All you are doing is demonstrating you do not want to address the mountain of evidence. But I can understand if you don't want to.

The problem is that all these religions are mutually exclusive, so if you use one point to claim your religion is correct and the same point can be made with equal or greater veracity about another religion that is mutually exclusive then that is not a valid argument for your religion.

On a personal note, you are making a valiant effort and I commend you for that!

Thanks. Lets keep at it as long as we disagree.

[Goat]

You're talking about the TF by Josephus? I'll conceded that references to Christs divinity and resurrection are likely interpolations, but not the entire passage such as references to Christs existence, death, His followers that didn't disappear. If you want to address the Gospels and other books of the NT, go right ahead.

Considering that you will admit that the TF by Josephus has been at least tampered with, what evidence do you have that it wasn't a total interpolation?

Yes, I know there was a variation found that matched your belief in the 'unaltered' type, however, that copy was from the 10th century, and really can't be used as evidence as existing before the 4th century (600 years is a long time).