You didn't give one detail.
And now you admit that you have no details.
You're making a claim. Support it.
They didn't even have the scientific method 2000 years ago. You have no provided even a single shred of evidence that anyone back then subjected the claims of Christianity to scientific scrutiny. Hell, you haven't shown that they were subjected to ANY scrutiny.
That was a pre-scientific era full of superstition. Even the Bible shows it. In Acts 28, Paul gets bitten by a snake, and the locals immediately think he's a god because he didn't drop dead. In Acts 14, a gimpy guy stands up when Paul and Barnabas show up and the locals think they're Hermes and Zeus.
This was a PRIMITIVE era.
You don't have historical evidence; you have religious legend.
Then why don't you apply that standard to other religious figures? Other religious texts talk about deities performing miracles and interacting with people. Why don't you accept all these claims?
Because they were never tried.
You still can't give me one argument they used.
You still can't give me one claim that was subjected to the scientific method.
No, it didn't. It may have largely come from Christians (and earlier pushed by the pagan Greeks), but that is a significant difference. Nothing in Christianity itself promotes scientific reasoning.
It started as a Jewish cult; of course it started with Jews. They weren't intellectuals though. Christianity's appeal with primarily with the downtrodden. It was an underdog's religion.
The Age of Reason and Enlightenment were primarily secular endeavors. They CHALLENGED superstition, faith, and religion; they didn't endorse them.
Science is a process that seeks natural answers to the universe's questions. This is in direct opposition to religion.
By what standard?
We are very primitive now, are we not? Is not the notion of being "primitive" subjective and relative?
Very arrogant indeed if you think you are smarter than ancient peoples.