Well there's to much evidence from historical sources saying the same thing. Some of it is written as in official correspondence and has no motives for promoting any agenda. In fact if anything some of it is trying to actually denounce the Christians and Christ as fools. The very fact they mention Christ and the christian movement which backs some of the things the bible says like that this Christ who they say does wonders and heals is a testimony in itself. But they dont deny it happening they just put it down to sorcery and not divinity.
There is great evidence that much of the gospels were written soon after the events and by eye witnesses or those who knew the eye witness. There was a strong tradition of oral reciting and passing on of events and it was a practice of the early believers. So it wasn't a case of it being forgotten and then people trying to recall events. The events were so significant that they were talked about a lot and they spread very fast throughout the land. The christian movement grew very fast and spread far and wide.
Again, "is popular" is not the same as "is true".
Could be but the ways in which he taught in parables and the manner is to authentic. It would be better to say that others made up stories than to say that Jesus was deluded. He is often saying dont tell others of what I have done and trying to humble himself. He has dealings with the local pharisees and they try to trap him. He is found guilty of no crimes. The historical writings are saying he was a good man who promoted good living and love. His followers loved him and were willing to give their lives. There was no wrong doing in his followers and they had to often hide to meet together as they were persecuted. Jesus himself comes across as a person who wasn't seeking fame or being egotistical or having any self deluded ideas. If anything he was the opposite. He made the statements about being the son of God as a straight forward thing which was really getting him in trouble as it was blasphemous in those times. He gave good reasoning for why he should be taken seriously with his connections to the Jewish law and old testament. He just made to much sense to be a deluded egocentric or someone seeking self promotion or even someone who was so unsure of himself that he was a emotional and excitable person like the ones you are trying to make him to be.
I said nothing of the sort. I posited that Jesus was eccentric (lit: held unusual ideas), charismatic (lit: good at explaining things to people and holding their attention), a rabbi (lit: knowledgeable about the faith) - I don't think anyone would disagree that Jesus was these things. I never said he was an attention seeker, I never said he wanted popularity, I only said that he was a smart knowledgeable Jew who
thought he was the messiah when
actually he was just a mortal man. But
other people believed him too, and thus the religion was born.
Your confusion may be born out of misunderstanding what I meant by 'popular', but I'll discuss that in the next point.
like I said he comes across as not wanting popularity and if anything is standing for truth and stating hundreds of times he is the truth and the way and the light. This would be more to do with delusion or madness than popularity.
When I said 'popular', I didn't mean 'puts on a fake persona to be liked by everyone' - I didn't mean Jesus was a highschool cheerleader!

I meant 'popular' as in 'liked by many people'.
Remember, you put forward that the
popularity of early Christianity supports its veracity ('popular' in that it swept the Roman Empire and now the West sets its calendars by it). That is became the staple religion of Europe just means it was popular, not that it was true. Islam was - and is - popular throughout the Middle East, northern Africa, Spain, Persia, etc, but that doesn't make it true. Mesoamerican religions were all the rage in the Americans before Europeans took over, but that doesn't mean they were any more or less true.
So I don't see why the the popularity of Christianity makes it more probable.
I'm not sure about Buddhist. But taking the most famous martyrs for their cause the Muslims this is totally different. The Muslims kill others to kill themselves that is their main objective. This shows that they murder which is not only against christian belief but is actually against their own beliefs. The Christians are being asked to denounce they belief and then they are killed if they dont. In fact it is often the muslims that will kill the christians because of this. The Christians were just trying to live and practice a way of life. They were not rebelious or radical or sought to fight anyone over it. They often had to hide so they could hold church meetings. They were not looking for trouble, trouble found them because they were a threat to the Romans.
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair comparison of Christian and Muslim martyrdom. Don't forget that the modern practice of Muslim suicide bombers is just that: modern. Muslims were (and are) just as persecuted by Christians as Christians were (and are) by Muslims, for much the same reason - convert or die.
Mohammad doesn't claim to be the son of God or do miracles or bring people back from the dead. He actually acknowledges Jesus as well. If you read some of the things about Mohammad he was just a man who who was more like a great leader. But he also had done some questionable things. Where as Jesus was innocent and never sinned but he was sent to death.
Muslims would say that Mohammed never sinner, either. How would you characterise this belief? True? False? Rational but false? Irrational and delusional?
Well 11 of the 12 disciples were executed for their beliefs and their writings are far from being deluded. They have to much cohesion and rational thought to be deluded to the point of not realizing they are giving up their lives for a silly cause.
Hmm, I think you are confusing what is meant by 'delusional'. You introduced the word yourself, in your dichotomy: "either mad or very deluded". I would personally have said 'mistaken'.
But in any case, I did not say they were stark raving lunatics. I said they were delusional - they held a belief that was not true. They held this belief so firmly that it cost them their lives - but that doesn't make the belief true, that just makes the whole thing tragic.
Just the behavior of the believers in that they had to hide and the good works many done seems not a delusion but a good way of life.
The two are not mutually exclusive. A false belief can still motivate people to lead good lives - just look at any Mosque-organised fundraiser or Hindu-run charity.
Like the many Christians today they show no signs of delusion any more than you or others do. They are rational and coherent in all their lives and can think and reason what they believe. They have normal lives and operate without delusion in every other part of their lives. They would have to be regarded as schizophrenic or so deluded that it would effect them as a whole ie be deluded and easily fooled in other areas of their lives.
I disagree: just look at the scientologists. An ancient alien called Lord Xenu sent alien called thetans into Earth's volcanoes and detonated them with hydrogen bombs, and now their souls plague us with psychological diseases, and psychologists are actually aliens looking to stop Scientology's work. Patently absurd beliefs, no? You'd have to be delusional to believe them... except people do. Thousands of people (millions, if you believe their numbers).
These are civilised and rational people, like you or me, yet they believe something as silly as Scientology.
The same could be said for any other clear and obvious nonsense - horoscopes, psychic mediums, David Icke's "the Queen is an alien reptile", "9/11 was an inside job", "atheists worship Satan", etc. Any iota of thought or modicum of research shows these things for what they are - hocum. And yet, perfectly intelligent people are suckered in.
Well not just in my opinion. Parables like the good Samaritan and the lost son are famous throughout history and the non religious world as good ways to live and good reasonable and rational thought. Thinks live love your neighbor as you love your self and the meek shall inherit the earth are famous sayings from Jesus.
Actually, they're not. For one thing, it exists almost word for word in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18). For another, the Golden Rule, as it's called, is found throughout the world in many disparate cultures, religions, and moral philosophies, and predates Jesus by quite a way - it's been found as far back as ancient Babylon in 1760 BCE.
In fact if you read the sermon on the mount it is one of the best examples of the teachings of Jesus which gives a rational and good philosophy for life. These aren't the rantings of a ego maniac or deluded person.
Indeed. But I never said he was delusional or an ego maniac - I said he was a normal man who claimed to be God and believed it. Otherwise rational people can come to all sorts of wacky conclusions - like believing the world is going to end, or that the souls of dead aliens are what cause psychological problems.
No I said he would either have to be deluded or there was something to what he said. Even the non religious historians acknowledge his claims as being the son of God and that he was going around performing miracles. That was the word and this is what people were seeing and saying. So they were either all deluded or Jesus was doing some card tricks or magical tricks as people were being healed as in the blind seeing and the dead rising. This is said to be why the movement grew so fast because of the miraculous things that had happened. These things stunned people and the Christians were converting sometimes 3,000 at a time. It grew very fast that within a few hundred years it took over the roman empire and was even adopted by the state. The very one that was trying so hard to stubbed it out. So even the enemies of it were convinced.
All that proves is that the religion was popular, not that the alleged miracles occurred. Every religion has alleged miracles, but sheer popularity doesn't prove anything.