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.

[Lotan]

Come up with a logical analysis for the causation of Christianity.

Christianity was a response to Roman imperial oppression. The rest is details.

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.

I think you mean 'simplistic' conclusion. The introduction of an unevidenced supernatural realm is hardly simple.

[McCulloch]

[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.

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.

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?

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

Almost? Where did inerrancy go?

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?

[Goose]

[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.

[Cogitoergosum]

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?

[Galphanore]

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."

I'm curious, how is it fallacious to say that if you can't prove god exists then there is no reason to believe in him? Atheism is the lack of belief in god, if there is no evidence for god then the reasonable position is to not believe.

[McCulloch]

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

This is explained by the assumption that the author was familiar with the geography of the area. Maybe he lived there or maybe he knew someone who lived there or had traveled there extensively.

[Galphanore]

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

This is explained by the assumption that the author was familiar with the geography of the area. Maybe he lived there or maybe he knew someone who lived there or had traveled there extensively.

Exactly, fiction writers often use real locations. Take The Da Vinci Code, he uses lots of real locations in that book and you can easily go to most of the locations used, does that mean the whole thing is accurate? Or is it more likely that they used these locations because it's easier to keep consistent if you use real locations?

[Galphanore]

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.

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.

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, 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.

All the things you are insisting be answered are about fictional events and can easily be explained as such. They are stories that are meant to help people understand the message that the early, now forgotten, preacher spoke of and have long sense gone beyond that to the point that now some people think the translation of a translation of a number of stories is the literal word of god. I'm curious about one of your points though, at number six you said that archeology has not turned up anything to contradict the bible....but nothing in the bible makes any claims about things that would be testable that would not also, even easier, just be a setting that was used by our lost preacher to make his stories consistent. Real locations do not equal real events.

[Cogitoergosum]

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

This is explained by the assumption that the author was familiar with the geography of the area. Maybe he lived there or maybe he knew someone who lived there or had traveled there extensively.

Exactly, fiction writers often use real locations. Take The Da Vinci Code, he uses lots of real locations in that book and you can easily go to most of the locations used, does that mean the whole thing is accurate? Or is it more likely that they used these locations because it's easier to keep consistent if you use real locations?

All of these proofs have explanations to y they happened without invoquing the divine, these same proofs as i showed are very similar to proofs moslims can use to prove their religion is the right one. So should we all convert to islam and believe in allah? If these were convincing, why r u not moslim achilles?