Is Christianity based on older myths?

[Mister Agenda]

Well, i am yet to see similarities to a degree which would constitute evidence that Christianity was a derivative or somehow inspired by them.

More likely that someone like the Simon referenced in the Gabriel Revelation tablet was.

We're talking in the context of getting a religion started, though. Christianity was adopted by the state, after it became so popular.

Was there ever a religion enforced by the state before it became popular?

There is a lot of evidential support, just you wrongly place too much weight on certain evidence or the lack thereof.

In the argument game, that's an example of a mere assertion.

Who writes history in the present?

Chroniclers.

If you want to judge the validity of a historical figure, you look alot deeper than whether or not you can find contemporary sources.

The alternatives are not 'deeper'. They are weaker. There is very weak evidence in support of the existence of an historical Jesus.

There are no contemporary sources for hundreds if not thousands of historical figures we accept as having existed. Historians don't even expect to find contemporary sources, the study is much wider and much more scholarly.

I agree. But there is a difference between someone's existence being accepted and it being certain. I accept the existence of Jesus, but I don't consider it a certainty. These things are always matters of probability. Over 50% is actually pretty reasonable for someone only known from second-hand accounts.

If someone made up a story such as the feeding of the 5000, and they told it while Jesus still lived, or soon thereafter, and they told it to the exact same people/culture to whome it was meant to have happened, but it didn't happen, don't you think those people would have noticed?

What, through checking the internet? Investigative journalism? Fact-checking wasn't a common practice back then...it isn't even sufficiently common now, when it's extremely easy to do, rather than extremely difficult as it was then. People routinely believed things based on rumor alone. And there's no evidence that Paul ever mentioned the feeding of the 5,000; or had even heard of it.

Christianity wouldve fallen flat on its face at the first hurdle.

Like Mormonism did? Oh, wait, despite being founded by a known con man and its adherents being oppressed to the point of being subject to shoot on sight orders in some states, it not only survived, it's flourishing. If your logic was sound, there would only be true religions.

But no, the growth of Christianity was astonishing, and the best explanation is that there were many many witnesses.

The best explanation is that it mandated vigorous prosyletization on pain of eternal torment and had a message that resonated with the masses in comparison to its competitors.

It is very strong evidence for the existence of Jesus, which was what was up for debate.

It's only evidence for what Christians claimed, not actually evidence for Jesus, though you've correctly identified what was up for debate for which you failed to provide any evidence but hearsay.

Again, i was refuting the claim that there was no rapid rise of Christianity before the second century or later.

Who claimed that?

As a side note, people are making trips, but all of these people had to be convinced, too. Very difficult if there weren't large numbers of witnesses at the time, especially for a religion like Christianity, not developed by the state ie Rome, Egypt, Greece. Not enforced by a warlord who already had power and wealth, such as Muhammed.

Except that rational skepticism was a practically unknown concept among the common people of that region and time. They routinely accepted as fact any traveller's tale they heard if they didn't have direct knowledge that it was false. Rumors spread like wildfire and were widely believed. Anyone troubling to determine the truth of such matters would have had to travel long distances, locate supposed witnesses (who are rarely sufficiently identified in the Gospels for that to even be possible), and compare stories. And what would they get for their troubles? Can you actually name any person who was going to that kind of effort to verify rumors back then?