The narrative you present is steeped in martyrdom and myth, designed to evoke emotion rather than reason. First, the notion that enduring persecution somehow validates the truth of a belief system is fallacious. Throughout history, numerous religions and ideologies have produced martyrs willing to die for their cause, from ancient cults to modern extremist groups. The willingness to qsuffer does not authenticate the claims being made.
You're missing the point. Movements with no truth behind them, or no future, die out sooner or later. Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will scatter 99 times out of 100.
People back then were rational actors, contrary to your position of chronological snobbery. Just because they didn't live in Current Year doesn't mean they were all gullible morons who believed whatever asinine tall tale they were told by strangers.
Plus, your assertion that they were just lying, or deluded fanatics high on copium also lacks evidence. Their willingness to die being due to sincere conviction is a less speculative and arbitrary guess.
What would be in it for them? If Jesus was just ancient George Floyd wrongfully condemned to death, why would He be any different? The Romans killed a lot of people just to make an example of their subjects.
And at the time, there had been plenty other self-proclaimed messiahs with fanatical followers and much better position to gain power. Their movements all died out.
Christianity's core tenets fly in the face of everything a self-serving, duplicitous, or crazy person would just make up. Even in the New Testament, St. Paul addresses that if there were no Resurrection, everything they're doing is lolcow behavior.
Many of the accounts of their deaths are found in texts written decades or even centuries
Which was lightning-fast in the time before the printing press. The written accounts of Alexander the Great didn't come around until centuries after his time, yet they are also considered accurate.
And the Apostles' lines of succession are well-documented, all the way down to present-day bishops.
Political, social, and economic factors played significant roles in its expansion, including the patronage of Roman emperors,
The Edict of Milan did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire; Constantine merely decriminalized it, and that was after several centuries of violent persecutions.
You say it was adopted for its usefulness to the Empire, but how do you know that's true? How do you know that they didn't think it was a movement that had a life of its own? You're assuming they just woke up one day and decided to adopt the very thing they considered a nuisance to eradicate, because it was convenient for them at the time, and that people would just go along with it unquestioningly.
the co-opting of pagan rituals
An accusation from superficial similarity, which is popular, but doesn't hold up when you actually compare the belief systems.
For example, Devotion to the saints is not a practice that substituted the Greco-Roman pantheon. Asking the saints in Heaven to pray for you has its roots in the Book of Revelation, and evidence of it has been found inscribed on ancient Christian tombs.
The kind of "Coexist" syncretism you are asserting, once again, is often inconsistent and peters out after a while. It would result in the wishy-washy, no-convictions feel-good crap you see in Unitarian Universalism.
TLDR...
Overall, it's obvious why you automatically ascribe sordid and ignoble reasons to Christianity; as your first post ITT shows, you just don't want it to be true.
