A replacement hypothesis for what, you haven't provided anything to replace?
Replace an entire religion based off the life and actions of a living person, that managed to basically dominate the course of an entire empire over a few hundred years with a religion that was a fictional story created by someone?
Why would people begin to follow this religion in the first place? What did it offer that other religions of the time didn't?
Because nobody needs a 'replacement hypothesis', there were many such movements.
Why would you need a 'replacement hypothesis'? That is not how history works - you don't demand others come up with 'replacement hypothesis', you need to evidence your own hypothesis.
Nobody needs a better explanation than; Well sure, there were many break away sects at about that time. So what?
You always need a replacement hypothesis. That's how debate works. One person presents their view of the subject with supporting arguments and evidence. Then the other person presents counter-arguments and evidence that support their view of what happen.
Yes, there were many break away sects at that time. What made this one different enough in order for it to permanently change the course of human history?
Oh no. There was every reason in the world to fake it.
Yes, I'm curious as to what these reasons were as well. I don't even understand how you can make a statement like this and not explain the reasons why?
As I keep asking, like what?
We have Josephus and Tacitus a generation later, and the gospels.
What else?
The thing you must understand is that in all likelihood, the Jesus movement most likely did not make enough of a bang for the major historians to write about it as much more than a foot note, until many years after the crucifixion occurred. The Jesus movement was a very small one, up until at least 50 years after his death. Up until then, he was most likely just a Jew that crucified on Passover. I believe there is a document that records at least three other Jewish rebels suffering the exact same fate at the exact same time. Why would their story not be made into a religion as well?
It's those on a quest for an historical Jesus that have their work cut out for them. For the skeptic there is nothing about the crucifixion to explain away, I mean, no witnesses, where's the problem?
How many crucifixions do you think occurred over the course of the Roman empire's reign that were not recorded by any witness of significance. Does that mean that the Roman empire did not crucify anyone? At the time of Jesus' crucifixion he was not a large enough player for any historian to mention him as anything more than a footnote.
Exactly
You're reading a narrative, it's fiction. People don't rise from the dead.
Actually, people rise from the "dead" on quite a regular basis. My mom's a nurse and she sees people rise from the dead on a daily basis. Have you ever heard of the term bellringer? It arises from people sitting next to freshly buried people in the 19th century with a bell attached to the coffin in case they "rose from the dead".
However, my personal opinion is that Jesus never died on the cross.
Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross – A Cardiologist
This is what we call a replacement hypothesis. I propose a new argument of my own different from that of the other person I am debating with, and present evidence to support my point of view.
The evidence appears to be a well guarded secret.
No, the evidence that is presented is not enough for you to believe that Jesus existed. Why would Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus' crucifixion if they didn't believe it happen? Where they deceived by the created story of Jesus' as well? You also have the Talmud evidence as well. Why would the very people Jesus was separating from include a reference to his crucifixion if it didn't happen?
The only real evidence that suggests that Jesus was not a real person was the writings of some early Christian gnostic sects that believed Jesus didn't exist. And granted, this is some decent evidence in my opinion, because I hold that the "gnostic" type sects were the original sects of Christianity. However, this does not hold true within all gnostic circles, so the descrepencies kind of make me question it.
