not a theist

What's the proper course of action when bombarded by a Christian with "If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then how did Christianity start?" type questions?

I've tried explaining that we have insufficient evidence to determine the very early history of Christianity and that the situation is much more complicated than he's making it appear but now he seems to think that I'm delusional for not believing his claims.
(A claim which I actually never made about Paul.)

The upshot is that I didn't even want to have this sort of discussion and it stemmed from my trying to explain to a Christian that atheists aren't secret believers.

<a href="http://bbs.payableondeath.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=009223;p=" target="_blank">Here's the thread.</a> The real action is on <a href="http://bbs.payableondeath.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=009223;p=2" target="_blank">page two</a> of the thread. I'm posting as n.a.t.; sniff is my "opponent". I'm caught between having to analyze each of his implicit claims (a book length task) or backing down. Judging from his past tenacity, he'll keep pressing his claims.

Advice?

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

K

If the stars don't determine our destiny, how did astrology start?

If aliens aren't abducting people, how did the UFO abduction phenomenon start?

If there wasn't a spaceship behind Hale-Bopp, how did Heaven's Gate start?

If Mikey from Life Cereal didn't die from mixing Pop Rocks and Coca Cola, how did that story start?

not a theist

If it were only that simple.

Here's his response to my response to him. There are so many implicit assumptions in his thinking here that I don't even know where I would began to start deconstructing it (dates of the gospels, location and authorship of the gospels, structure of early church, redactional elements, psychology of religious experience, sociological models, etc.) Is there a good way to handle such a massive amount of material without having to write a book length response?
Him:
So, his self-delusional conversion experience at first resisted by the intentionally delusional apostles eventually results in them happily embracing him in the "faith" as one more important cog adding tremendous credibility to the young movement.

Except there are some serious problems with this view. For one thing, they end up submitting to his authority (such as non-obedience to Jewish customs for Gentiles) - the apostles who really never witnessed a risen Lord take a tongue-lashing from somebody who didn't even know Him in the first place and submit to this upstart? I don't think so.

Saul the Pharisee is so fascinated with Christians that he goes from city to city inciting violence against them - developing quite a name and reputation for himself, and undoubtedly a future in the Sanhedrin. Then abandons all, presumably a family, wealth, comfort, status, etc. and becomes an impoverished persecuted prisoner - over and over and over again. Thus becoming what he hated most and becoming subject to the very torment which he once meted - all because of a self originated vision. I don't think so.

And the healings, miraculous events, and mass conversions recorded in Acts are all lies or misunderstandings. I don't think so.

Him:
You'd think in a community/sect made up nearly entirely of Jews, ostentatiously proclaimers of "truth", that they'd know whether or not one of their members was once a Roman centurion and toss out this "literary device" for what they knew it was - an obvious and endangering lie - if that was the case.
Him:
I should have said more specifically the rise within Judaism. The Palestine Jews would certainly have noted huge discrepancies between the oral stories of Jesus, the written accounts of Him, the spreading of the "gospel" throughout the region and what they obviously knew first hand - or at least from their parents. If He was no Son of God, if He performed no miracles, if He was simply somebody with a quick hand, if He did not do what they said He did - and they were pretty specific about the places where these supposed miracles took place - you'd think we'd have seen a greater uproar within Judaism against those lies. Instead, we see that the uproar is not against whether or not He said this or that or performed miracles or not - or ANY of the existential proof that He used to demonstrate divinity - instead, the uproar is simply against the claim of divinity.

Him:
And this is what I consider amazing: that the whole of the Christian gospel and the entirety of Christian history could logically be reduced to a series of fortuitous coincidences and blatant lies. That it is easier to believe that hundreds of people conspired - including those who stood to lose their lives, their reputations, their security and livlihoods - for dozens of years to simply keep alive a lie that they originated, than that they told the truth: They knew God, walked with Him, spoke with Him, watched Him die, and saw Him arisen from the dead.

Its true that these are the things for which man has hoped since the beginning of recorded history - look at all the archaeological digs that discover ancient religions - the simple fact that this spiritual quest is such a deep seated, ancient, and essential longing of man goes a long ways towards defining the question. In other words, this is a story that mankind hopes is true...denying this or reducing all of history's religions to God-of-the Gaps reasoning is as delusional as you claim Paul to be...there is an undeniable question written in the psyche of man.

The only plausible answer to that question is in Jesus Christ.

The only plausible answer to the series of good luck and fortune of that early sect in drawing adherents from the very region in which Jesus taught, of their willingness to suffer and die, of the tales that arose unchallenged in that early time - is that it their story is true...or that every early record challenging it was erased and every voice stilled - resulting in a conspiracy theory that makes government-held UFO's and the CIA killing Kennedy with aid from the Russians seem likely explanations.

And you, n.a.t., don't seem like a conspiracy theorist.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

K

He's beyond hope.

SanDiegoAtheist

He seems obsessed by what he considers to be the rapid growth of Xianity (in other words, he's arguing that they became a force quite quickly, and that these converts would have been too close to the origination of Xianity to have been fooled or conned).

Of course, it doesn't appear that Xianity took off quickly at all in Palestine, or anywhere else in the Middle East. Xianity is COMPLETELY ignored by contemporary philosophers, historians, and others who, if it HAD been a force which converted multitudes after Jesus' death, should have at the very least NOTICED it.

The only actual written evidence during the first century or so after the date given for Jesus' death which could reasonably be assumed to be objective are notations in various historians works and such, which give the strong impression that Xianity, even THEN, was no more than a small cult with odd beliefs (with the exception of the Testimonium Flavinium, which of course is widely regarded, even in Xian circles, as heavily redacted, if not a complete forgery)

It doesn't appear that until Xianity was well over a century old that it began really building up converts and becoming a political force to be reckoned with.

Have you bothered to draw parallels with, say, Mormonism or Scientology? Both of which show a religion can go from cult to religion pretty dang quick - even with zero convincing evidence.

People WANT to believe that this life isn't it - that's a huge attraction of religions. A lot of people, it appears, will believe in just about anything if it means that they think that they will be rewarded after death. Religions start because many people AREN'T skeptical. They take peoples word for events that they have never (and will never) see for themselves, without questioning the witnesses possible motives.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Viti

Have him read

"The Mythmaker" - Paul and the Invention of Christianity. By Hyam Maccoby

It was my first foray into the topic and very compelling