spamandham

If there is no historical core, but all else remained the same, how would the "genius of Christ" be any different? I don't see how you've made a connection between the story, and a historical core. All you've done is argue that because the story is compelling, therefore there was a historical core. The 'man of genius' is the story writer, without whom, Christianity would not have flourished regardless of a historical core.

The real genius of Christianity had little to do with Jesus, but instead was its universally inclusive nature, while leveraging off the aura of authority provided by the Jewish scriptures, combined with an emphasis on propagating the story, and the promise of life ever lasting.

No Robots

It is at least equally plausible that if the Temple had not been destroyed Christianity would have early on established itself as normative Judaism.

What we are talking about here is literature and its impact on human activity. To deny that the Gospels are the most influential works of literature in all of human history is to deny the obvious. There is a reason why Greece and Rome abandoned their own literary heritage for the Gospels, and a reason why the Gospels continue to draw people.

With the English language we can identify several causes for its apparent universalization, with Anglo-American victories in the world wars being one important cause. None of the reasons has much to do with any genius inherent in the English language. Language is merely an instrument. It is thought-content and its influence which are the primary consideration here.

No Robots

As I have pointed out, it is simply impossible to maintain that those who composed the Gospels have any share at all in the spirit of genius that pervades them.

2-J

Why is it impossible to maintain that?

What is it about the gospels that make it *impossible* that they were simply made up?

No Robots

It was part of Christ's genius that he entrusted his words to the lowest of the low. From this tiny mustard seed grows the mighty tree. We know that already by the early second century Christianity was a hot topic for Roman administrators (Pliny/Trajan correspondence).

No Robots

There is no genius in the literary composition. All the genius resides in what is described and quoted.

Again, consideration of the entire literary context precludes that kind of fabrication. Those who composed the Gospels simply did not have in themselves the kind of genius that they describe.

2-J

Even monkeys hitting typewriters would produce the Gospels eventually.

Therefore, even if you are correct that the Gospels contain ideas of genius that could simply not have been imagined by their writers, you have at most demonstrated that it is very unlikely that they were fabrications.

On another note, I don't see anything in Jesus' words or deeds as described by the gospels that stands out as incredibly ingenious, but I suppose that is more up for debate.

show_no_mercy

Because people are religious. It has nothing to do with any inherent "genius" of the gospels. Prior to the establishment of "Christendom", the Iliad and the Odyssey were considered divinely inspired.

You can use the same argument for the "genius" of the Koran; why would the entire Arab world give up their pagan heritage if not for the "genius" of Mohammad? If the Koran weren't "genius", then the Caliphate would not have survived.

Again, use the same argument for Mormon scripture, Buddhist scripture, Hindu scripture, Jain scripture, etc. The one theme throughout them all is that people are religious and will psychotically revere their holy scriptures.

And this is different from the spread of Christianity how?

If you can't see how these two situations are the same then there's nothing else to say.

No Robots

This is all true. But even though people distort these works, it doesn't mean that they hold no great truths.

Sure, Christianity was often carried forward at sword point, but Christ is loved by billions in spite of this.

No Robots

It really seems an impossibility to me. Look at how one of the twentieth century's greatest novelists, Hermann Hesse, in his The Glass bead game tries to create a narrator who is stupider than the protagonist. This is a tough trick, and Hesse only partially succeeds. So much more unlikely is it then that these ammé haaretz not only made themselves look deliberately stupid as narrators, but also managed to create the most powerful personage in all of literary history.