Was Jesus the Messiah real?

[Max]

I'm dealing with a rabid christian about Jesus. However, I'm not that knowledged in the area, so I was wondering if anyone can help me refute, provide tood resources/tools, etc. to counter the obvious retorts and statements I'll be facing. So far he's already sourced Wikipedia when I asked him if he could show any historical accounts of Jesus.

Alright, here's some stuff I found on Wikipedia.com. First up:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written before the Gospels or Acts, mentions post-resurrection appearances to Iakobos ("James") - presumably the "brother" of Jesus - and to 500 brethren.

So not only was it at least 400 people, it was actually 500.

Brief timeline of Jesus
of important years from empirical sources. (Roman)
c. 6 BC/BCE Suggested birth (earliest).
c. 4 BC/BCE Herod's death.
c. AD 6/6 CE Suggested birth (latest).
Quirinius census.
c. 26/27 Pilate appointed Judea governor.
c. 27 Suggested death (earliest).
c. 36 Suggested death (latest).
c. 36/37 Pilate removed from office.

So this proves that he did, in fact, exist.

The entire New Testament was written within the fifty years following Jesus' crucifixion, by men that were alive in Jesus' time and either knew him very well or had extensive conversations with those who knew him. One, a doctor named Luke, wasn't even one of his followers until after he had written his book! That's all for now. Don't worry, I'll have more later.

It's apparent that he's going to bring somemore sources or literature to the argument, so I'd really like to be prepared. =)

[Darth Wong]

And how does he know that the entire New Testament was written in the 50 years following his death? Because he says so? Because Wikipedia says so? Because the Roman Catholic Church says so, based on Roman Catholic records? What happened to the original manuscripts for it?

[Max]

That's what I was wondering, but I'm afraid he'll back me into a wall with "Well, how do you know that history books are correct. The people that write them weren't there..it's all second hand information..blah blah blah." Basically he'll use my argument against me. I can foresee it.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

For one thing, the methodology of the census mentioned in the New Testament is generally inconsistent with the way the Roman Empire actually conducted censuses at the time.

And he's pulling shit out of his ass if he claims that Wikipedia states that the Gospels were written by people with first-hand knowledge of Jesus.

Christian fundamentalists believe in Biblical inerrancy, particularly in the Gospels. Some respected scholars, which are not necessary fundamentalists, tend not to see contradictions in the text, but simply "different ways" of describing the same event.

However, subjecting the Bible to the same level of source criticism as secular texts raises questions of historiography. The Gospels Mark, Matthew, and Luke do not claim to be written by first-hand witnesses (though a tradition disputed by most scholars has Matthew written by an apostle), and are thus subject to the issue of Chinese whispers. The Gospel of John is seen by some as being written by an apostle, however, many others dispute the authorship for a series of reasons.

Furthermore:

The main source of historical information about Jesus is contained within the Christian Gospels. Some also claim that evidence for a historical Jesus is provided by the Epistles, especially those by Paul. Other sources regarded as of less significance from the perspective of modern historians are other early Christian material, other religious traditions, and the Jewish historian Josephus (see Josephus on Jesus).

Some historians claim that the sources on which Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide evidence for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic account of his life and death. The Gospel of Mark is considered by historians to be the earliest of the four. These scholars date it between 55 and 80; so they conclude that it was fairly close to the early oral preaching about Jesus' life.

Mark is not the only possible source for such remnants of oral preaching. Gospel passages outside of the influence of Mark, but appearing verbatim or near-verbatim in both Matthew and Luke, have been proposed as the remnants of a "sayings Gospel" used by the authors of Matthew and Luke in composing their Gospels. Such a document, some New Testament scholars believe, would have predated even Mark, but the subject is a controversial one. See Q document for a fuller discussion of Gospel source materials.

Furthermore, here's something Wikipedia says on Luke:

The date of this gospel's composition is uncertain. Estimates range from ca 80 to ca 130 AD.

Traditional views of the date

Traditionally, Christians believe that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation, of Paul. This would place it as having been written before the Acts, whose date of the composition is generally fixed at about AD 63 or 64. Consequently the tradition is that this Gospel was written about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. If the alternate conjecture is correct, that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there, then it would date earlier, 40–60. Evangelical Christians tend to favor this view, in keeping with the tradition to date the gospels very early.

Luke addressed his gospel to "most excellent Theophilus." Theophilus, which in Greek means "Friend of God", may just be a literary expression.

Unfortunately, nowhere in Luke or Acts does it say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul; this ascription is late second century. Furthermore, the text itself reveals hints that it was not written as a dictation of a single author, but made use of multiple sources.

(All emphases mine.)

Clearly, he is very possibly being exceedingly dishonest about his use of Wikipedia.

[Darth Wong]

That's what I was wondering, but I'm afraid he'll back me into a wall with "Well, how do you know that history books are correct. The people that write them weren't there..it's all second hand information..blah blah blah." Basically he'll use my argument against me. I can foresee it.

When it comes to people who didn't leave a huge footprint at the time, you can't. That's the whole point; Jesus did not leave a huge footprint at the time he supposedly lived. Julius Caesar did; far too many people had to conspire to collaborate on the forgery of far-flung records and letters and stories in order to make up a man like Julius Caesar or his accomplishments. But Jesus? Why are there only one or two contemporary accounts of him? If he was rousing huge crowds in Jerusalem and threatening civil order and calling himself the King of the Jews, why did the Romans take no note of it at the time? If he had reached such a level of fame that even Roman soldiers were believing in his ability to raise the dead and create miracles, why the silence?

It's all well and good to say that the Roman Empire started keeping all kinds of records of what happened later, when they became Christian, but where are the contemporary records?

[Wicked Pilot]

Honestly what difference does it make? If the existence of Jesus was proven tomorrow it wouldn't change a damn thing. If we found out that Achilles existed it won't mean there's a pool somewhere of special magic water that makes all those who swim in it invincible. Of course a lack of good evidence of Jesus the man makes a good thorn in the side of Christians, but there's already so much other bullshit in the Bible it seems almost redundant.

[Enforcer Talen]

I favor jesusneverexisted.com, but some people may disagree with the slant of the site.

[weemadando]

Gah!

The idiocy.

The new testament never existed until several hundred years after the ALLEGED death of the ALLEGED messiah. And even then it was still just a loose collection of tales primarily passed down via oral tradition.

[weemadando]

That's what I was wondering, but I'm afraid he'll back me into a wall with "Well, how do you know that history books are correct. The people that write them weren't there..it's all second hand information..blah blah blah." Basically he'll use my argument against me. I can foresee it. :x

Real fucking simple.

Historians base their theories (not assumptions like the Christians) off careful study and cross referencing of primary sources from the time. This means actual archaeological evidence as well as collections of letters etc.

Point 1 - no archaeological evidence AT ALL of any bible related material (yes Egypt, Rome etc all existed, but there is no evidence of any of the people mentioned in the Bible, nor the events - though watch out, many of the events have had a lot of pseudoscientific "research" tied to them like red-tides and the rivers running red - but if they go for that then they clearly don't believe it was an act of god).

Point 2 - the letters which we have from contemporary sources can be easily validated through cross-referencing and determining the truthfulness of the statements within based off our knowledge of the times and events from other primary sources. The bible CANNOT be used to prove the bible.

A favourite point of mine, is that Tom Clancy writes big thick books with many chapters, just like the bible, and that in Tom Clancy books there are REAL COUNTRIES and vague references to REAL HISTORICAL FIGURES (based on when the book was published, such as references to Lenin, Hitler, Kennedy etc - people already well and truly established in "folklore") - therefore according to Bible-logic (TM) Tom Clancy's books must be TRUE!

And as for these collections of letter

[weemadando]

Ghetto edit...

And as for the collections of letters - as historian's we view them with a healthy dose of scepticism, as many of the surviving letters are from nobility and regard politics, so as such we are careful to not make assumptions that everything in them must be true or 100% accurate as often they had been written with a specific intent, or bent...

[Rogue 9]

Gah!

The idiocy.

The new testament never existed until several hundred years after the ALLEGED death of the ALLEGED messiah. And even then it was still just a loose collection of tales primarily passed down via oral tradition.

"Several hundred years" is just a little exaggerated by almost any account. The Gospels were final (necessarily so) before the Nicene Council in 325, as that council decided which of the existing written texts would be the orthodox teachings of the Roman Church. Note that the Council did not write the Bible; it merely compiled it from separate texts that had been used previously, and I would hazard not for an inconsiderable amount of time, since it would be hard for the bishops to believe that an account written within living memory came from the hands of the apostles.

[DrkHelmet]

Gah!

The idiocy.

The new testament never existed until several hundred years after the ALLEGED death of the ALLEGED messiah. And even then it was still just a loose collection of tales primarily passed down via oral tradition.

I don't suppose you'd like to toss out some proof on that would you? As I recall, many years ago a partial section of Matthew in Hebrew was discovered that dated back to the first century.

Linky.

Roughly halfway down, you can find this quote on Matthew:

Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of the New Testament as historical, believing that the earliest texts were written long after the actual events described. However, careful new analysis by Professor Thiede has dated the fragments to the middle of the first century, thereby indicating that they are evidence that the Matthew Gospel was written only a generation after the crucifixion, or even earlier! Says William Tuohy of the Los Angeles Times, "Parts of the New Testament may have been written by men who actually knew Christ, rather than authors recounting a 2nd-Century version of an oral tradition."

The Magdalen fragments have been at the Oxford college since 1901. Little work has been done on them since 1953 when they were last edited by biblical scholars. But earlier this year, Thiede visited Oxford and inspected the papyrus. He concluded,

"The Magdalen fragment now appears to belong to a style of handwriting that was current in the 1st Century A.D., and that slowly petered out around the mid-1st Century. Even a hesitant approach to questions of dating would therefore seem to justify a date in the 1st Century, about 100 years earlier than previously thought."

Take it for what you will.

[Perinquus]

That's what I was wondering, but I'm afraid he'll back me into a wall with "Well, how do you know that history books are correct. The people that write them weren't there..it's all second hand information..blah blah blah." Basically he'll use my argument against me. I can foresee it.

When it comes to people who didn't leave a huge footprint at the time, you can't. That's the whole point; Jesus did not leave a huge footprint at the time he supposedly lived. Julius Caesar did; far too many people had to conspire to collaborate on the forgery of far-flung records and letters and stories in order to make up a man like Julius Caesar or his accomplishments. But Jesus? Why are there only one or two contemporary accounts of him?

Actually, there are no contemporary accounts of him. The one most commonly quoted by Christian apologists is an short passage from the Jewish historian Josephus (who lived through, and chronicled the Jewish revolt of the 1st century AD), and is almost universally regarded by historians as a fourth century insertion by Bishop Eusebius.

If you want a good, well researched article on the lack of evidence for Jesus' historicity, look here:

Jesus: History or Myth? by Dan Barker

Here are a few telling points:

In my four years of religious study at Azusa Pacific College, I took many bible classes - an entire course about the book of Romans, another class about Hebrew wisdom literature, and so on - but I was offered only one course in Christian apologetics. It was called "Christian Evidences," and I found it to be the least useful of all my studies. Since I preferred evangelism to academics, I found the information interesting, but irrelevant. The class did not delve deeply into the documents or arguments. We recited the roster of early historians and church fathers, and then promptly forgot them all. I figured that Christian scholars had already done the homework and that our faith rested on a firm historical foundation, and that if I ever needed to look it up I could turn to some book somewhere for the facts. I never needed to look it up. As a freethinker, I decided to "1ook it up." I am now convinced that the Jesus story is just a myth. Here's why:

1. There is no external historical confirmation for the New Testament stories.
2. The New Testament stories are internally contradictory.
3. There are natural explanations for the origin of the Jesus legend.
4. The miracle reports make the story unhistorical.

It is rarely if ever pointed out that none of these evidences date from the time of Jesus. Jesus supposedly lived sometime between 4 BC and 30 AD, but there is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by behevers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely knovm to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.

One of the writers who was alive during the time of Jesus was Philo Judaeus. John E. Remsburg, in The Christ, writes:

"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took placewhen Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not."

There are a number of plausible explanations for a natural origin of the Jesus myth, none of which can be proved with certainty. Unbelievers are not in agreement, nor need they be. Some skeptics think that Jesus never existed at all and that the myth came into being through a literary process. Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but feel that there could have been a first-century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was patterned. Others believe that Jesus did exist, and that some parts of the New Testament are accurate, although the miracles and the claim to deity are due to later editing of the original story. Still others claim that the New Testament is basically true in all of its accounts except that there are natural explanations for the miracle stories. (It is not just atheists who possess these views. Many liberal Christians, such as Paul Tillich, have "de-mythologized" the New Testament.)

None of these views can be proved, any more than the orthodox position can be proved. What they demonstrate is that since there do exist plausible natural alternatives, it is irrational to jump to a supernatural conclusion.

1. One of the views, held by J. M. Robertson and others, is that the Jesus myth was patterned after a story found in the Jewish Talmudic literature about the illegitimate son of a woman named Miriam (Mary) and a Roman soldier named Pandera, sometimes called Joseph Pandera. In Christianity and Mythology, Robertson writes: ". . . we see cause to suspect that the move- ment really originated with the Talmudic Jesus Ben Pandera, who was stoned to death and hanged on a tree, for blasphemy or heresy, on the eve of a Passover in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (B.C. 106-79). Dr. Low, an accomplished Hebraist, is satisfied that this Jesus was the founder of the Essene sect, whose resemblances to the legendary early Christians have so greatly exercised Christian speculation."

2. Another view is that the Jesus myth grew out of a pre-Christian cult of Joshua. Some suggest that the New Testament story about swapping Jesus for Barabbas (meaning "son of the father") arose from the tension between two different Joshua factions. Origen mentioned a "Jesus Barabbas." The name "Jesus" is the Greek for Joshua ("Yeshua" in Hebrew). In Mark 9:38 the disciples of Jesus saw another man who was casting out devils in the name of Jesus (Joshua). The Sibyllene Oracles identify Jesus with Joshua, regarding the sun standing still.

There are also five more examples of possible origins for a Jesus myth given.

Either in ignorance or in defiance of scholarship, preachers such as tel- evangelist Pat Robertson continue to rattle off the list of Christian "evidences," but most bible scholars, including most non-fundamentalist Christians, admit that the documentation is very weak. In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer, wrote: "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. . . . The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma . . ."

To sum up:

1. There is no external historical confirmation for the Jesus story outside of the New Testament.
2. The New Testament accounts are internally contradictory.
3. There are many other plausible explanations for the origin of the myth which do not require us to distort or destroy the natural world view.
4. The miracle reports make the story highly suspect.

The Gospel stories are no more historic than the Genesis creation accounts are scientific. They are filled with exaggerations, miracles, and admitted propaganda. They were written during a context of time when myths were being born, exchanged, elaborated, and corrupted, and they were written to an audience susceptible to such fables. They are cut from the same cloth as other religions and fables of the time. Taking all of this into account, it is rational to conclude that the New Testament Jesus is a myth.

[weemadando]

OK - The Nicene council established the NT in its written format as we know it today (vaguely - excluding things like the KJ editioralism). Up until that point there is no evidence that the gospels had existed together. The evidence showing that Matthew's gospel existed in a physical form is all well and good. Note that I said "primarily oral tradition". The simple nature of the existance of Christianity in the time until the official acceptance of it within the Roman Empire would have meant that an oral tradition would have been the most effective means of handing down the word of the god. Sure, there were undoubtedly copies of copies of copies of copies of PERHAPS an original AROUND. But by no means were they the norm.

And, shockingly - 325CE is "several hundred years" after ~30CE.

[Rogue 9]

OK - The Nicene council established the NT in its written format as we know it today (vaguely - excluding things like the KJ editioralism). Up until that point there is no evidence that the gospels had existed together. The evidence showing that Matthew's gospel existed in a physical form is all well and good. Note that I said "primarily oral tradition". The simple nature of the existance of Christianity in the time until the official acceptance of it within the Roman Empire would have meant that an oral tradition would have been the most effective means of handing down the word of the god. Sure, there were undoubtedly copies of copies of copies of copies of PERHAPS an original AROUND. But by no means were they the norm.

And, shockingly - 325CE is "several hundred years" after ~30CE.

Less than three is not "several" by any stretch.

[DrkHelmet]

And, shockingly - 325CE is "several hundred years" after ~30CE.

Normally, I would assume 'a' to be 1. Then I would assume a 'couple' to be 2. After that, I would assume 'few' to be 3 or 4. I would classify 'several' as 5-9. In any case, several implies at least 4, no matter how conservative you are. That's not quite three, even.

[Vendetta]

And how does he know that the entire New Testament was written in the 50 years following his death? Because he says so?

He generalised.

The first historical references to new testament material being extant (the gospels and a few epistles) start around 115CE, and have been preserved in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

The earliest surviving written version of the gospels is from somewhere around 170CE (Tatian's Diatassaron), though this is a little different from the modern version, consisting of a single narrative not four seperate ones.

There are a few Roman accounts dating from around the same time period. Tacitus' Annals, written in 115CE mention one Christus, who was executed during the reign of Tiberius (14-37CE), and mentions that Christians had been executed as scapegoats for the burning of Rome in 64CE (which means that people in Rome would at least know who they were, totally anonymous sects don't make good scapegoats).

Whilst I recognise that this is not sufficient evidence to say there definitely was an individual responsible for starting the cult of Christus, or whether it was a group and there never was a central 'real' figure, I favour the 'uppity preacher' theory. Radical religious leaders are still popping up today, all it takes is for one of them to be successful, and preferably martyred (always adds cachet, plus helps as they can't deny any future embellishments like being the son of god), and then a whole new cult could get started.

[Chmee]

Another reason it's hard to take Biblical accounts seriously is how heavily they borrow or mimic pagan traditions such as Mithraism:

For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began around 2800 years ago in Persia, where it was soon moved west and became imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. There is mention of Mithra or Mitra (et al) before 2800, but only as a minor diety and without much information. It appears to be after 2800 when Mithra is transformed and starts to play a major role among the gods. The faith spread east through India to China, and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman frontier; from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa. In Rome, more than a hundred inscriptions dedicated to Mithra have been found, in addition to 75 sculpture fragments, and a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city. One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome. The widespread popularity and appeal of Mithraism as the final and most refined form of pre-Christian paganism was discussed by the Greek historian Herodotus, the Greek biographer Plutarch, the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, the Gnostic heretic Origen, and St. Jerome the church Father. Mithraism was quite often noted by many historians for its many astonishing similarities to Christianity. The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.
However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single forerunner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world.

Link

Virgin births, resurrection, redemption, betrayal .... sort of recurrent themes in cults and religions that preceded Christianity ... all that really sets it apart is its global success at converting the faithful, which seems more like an accident of history than anything else.

[weemadando]

Less than three is not "several" by any stretch.

BAH! A couple is 2, several/a few/some is 3+ for me!

[weemadando]

Whilst I recognise that this is not sufficient evidence to say there definitely was an individual responsible for starting the cult of Christus, or whether it was a group and there never was a central 'real' figure, I favour the 'uppity preacher' theory. Radical religious leaders are still popping up today, all it takes is for one of them to be successful, and preferably martyred (always adds cachet, plus helps as they can't deny any future embellishments like being the son of god), and then a whole new cult could get started.

Shockingly enough thats the same interpretation I've always had of it - there are references to a "Christ" who was most likely just a David Koresh/Brian Jonestown.

[DrkHelmet]

Less than three is not "several" by any stretch.

BAH! A couple is 2, several/a few/some is 3+ for me!

In that case, I submit that the United States is several hundreds of years old! [/sarcasm]

He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity

<snip>

the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th.

Just for the record, neither of those two exist in the Bible. They are adaptations of the church. I'm not saying I'm a Bible-thumper, just pointing out an error.

[Vendetta]

Another reason it's hard to take Biblical accounts seriously is how heavily they borrow or mimic pagan traditions such as Mithraism:

Myth structures are parasitic.

Roman gods were Greek ones with false noses, but then they absorbed all the local gods and their backstories whenever they conquered a new province (f'rexample the Roman baths in Bath are dedicated to Sulis Minerva, a compound of the Roman goddess Minerva and the local equivalent).

The same things have happened in China and Japan. Both countries imported buddhism, and did it by restructuring existing mythologies to include Buddha and his teachings.

[Majin Gojira]

And lets not forget the Plague of Massiah's around that time period, like Apollonius of Tyana. If we're gonna talk about other messianic contemporaries of JC, ya gotta mention Appollonius.

[Max]

Does anyone have a source or some info to refute "why Christianity became the popular religion" and not any other ones? Apparently he's a student of religion /sarcasm

Look, I don't claim to be using Wikipedia in an honest or dishonest manner. I'm pulling out stuff that I know to be true. I took two classes on this stuff last year and have studied a bit on my own. You say that Mithraism, derived from Zoroastrinism, was practiced by the Persians? Why, then, did nearly the whole of that nation convert to Christianity? They weren't even under the Roman's sphere of influence! In fact, they were the most bitter enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire! I also know for a fact that the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written in the mid-90's A.D. by John(Jesus' disciple), albeit with the assistance of a scribe. Therefore, all that stuff about the Gospels being written after the turn of the first century is bull. Besides, anybody can rewrite the stuff on Wikipedia any way they want, so it's not like it's the most reliable source in the world. Max, although I respect your prowess in argument, this is an arena that you can't win in, so just drop it, okay?

[Chmee]

Does anyone have a source or some info to refute "why Christianity became the popular religion" and not any other ones? Apparently he's a student of religion /sarcasm

Look, I don't claim to be using Wikipedia in an honest or dishonest manner. I'm pulling out stuff that I know to be true. I took two classes on this stuff last year and have studied a bit on my own. You say that Mithraism, derived from Zoroastrinism, was practiced by the Persians? Why, then, did nearly the whole of that nation convert to Christianity? They weren't even under the Roman's sphere of influence! In fact, they were the most bitter enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire! I also know for a fact that the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written in the mid-90's A.D. by John(Jesus' disciple), albeit with the assistance of a scribe. Therefore, all that stuff about the Gospels being written after the turn of the first century is bull. Besides, anybody can rewrite the stuff on Wikipedia any way they want, so it's not like it's the most reliable source in the world. Max, although I respect your prowess in argument, this is an arena that you can't win in, so just drop it, okay?

Mystery cults like Mithraism were very restrictive in membership in comparison to Christianity ... you had to learn a bunch of secret rites and not publicize them ... the Christians took anybody, peasant or prince.

It was by no means a sudden process for nations to switch from paganism to Christianity ... and if 'nearly the whole' of Persia (Iran) converted to Christianity, I would say it didn't stick too well and maybe I wouldn't be bragging about *them* as a test case.