Miracles as driver of early Christianity

We probably read the New Testament (second part of the Bible about Christ on earth) through one of these glasses:

1. Nice myths / fiction
2. Plain history / non-fiction
3. A combination of 1 and 2

If we see the Bible as a myth or early fiction, the Bible doesn’t explain how Christianity spread.

If we see parts of the Bible as myth / fiction and other parts as historical, question is which parts are fiction, which parts non-fiction. Since the New Testament is a story from different authors, the story is rarely doubted, but certain elements certainly are:

• Resurrection of Christ
• The miracles

My trouble is: why would Christianity have spread, if not as a result of the miracles? Jesus was crucified, all disciples were desparate together, then they see the resurrected Jesus a few times and Jesus goes to heaven.

If the disciples went with this story to the market, why would anybody believe them? The people were either Jew (anti-Jesus), or Greek (grounded in philosophy), or believer of any tale. What reason would there be to raise this story above all other stories of their time?

For long, I rationalized: given all possible stories, it makes sense that at least one story will prevail over time. Even if it is an irrational story, that unfolds for no clear reason. Even if it is preached without coerce. This is appealing, because it is safe: we can hide. No further analysis necessary.

Nonetheless, I still think the question is still nice: if there were no miracles, how would, according to the Bible, early Christianity have spread?

Acts 2 desribes the arrival of the Holy Spirit in the disciples (they receive the Holy Spirit), which sounds like the wind. As a result, the people in Jerusalem are worried and the disciples could speak all languages. They preached in all travelers languages; 3000 people came to believe.

Acts 3 describes the healing of a crippled man, by Peter and John. The people are stunned, then the gospel is preached.
Although acts 4 describes the capture of Peter and John by the Jewish leaders, 5000 men came to believe (I am not sure if 3000 raised to 5000, or 5000 new believers). Peter and John were released, because the leaders feared the people, who had witnessed the miracle.

Acts 5 describes the continuation of healing of the sick and cleaning of unclean spirits. Citation verses 14: ‘And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women’.
Acts 5 continues with all disciples being put in prison. But next morning, they are all free in the temple, preaching. This leads to the conclusion of the Jewish leader Gamaliel: if this work is of people, it will be broken. But if it is of God, we cannot break it. The disciples are set free (after they have been flogged) and continue their preach.

And so on.

My conclusions are simple:

• The story has a continuous cause and effect: miracles, preach, believe, implicating that if the miracles had not happened, nobody would have believed the disciples.
• I cannot decide where fiction starts. I rather conclude that it is all history, or all fiction.
• If these miracles have happened, then the gospel must be true as well.
• We have a problem either way: In case of fiction, we have a problem with the remaining 50 books of the Bible. In case of history, we have a problem with the gospel and the risen Jesus.