I haven't read the book yet so I am only commenting ( superficially ) on your description provided above.  But Christianity formed to unite people to destroy the Roman empire ?  My understanding is that Rome wasn't destroyed ( by any means ) by Christians but was instead co-opted by Christians beginning with Emperor Constantine and continuing on as a Christian theocracy for quite some time.   I agree about  unfulfilled prophecy and other dubious claim that are always shielded from attack by subtle definition of Greek / Hebrew words and what they really, really mean.  Also, I don't think Christianity has actually failed as a movement beings that it's current global membership numbers in the hundreds of millions.

  I'm curious about your take on Original Sin® and the Mark Of The Beast®, though.   Good luck with your book sales.

Congrats, sounds interesting.

@PDZ, re: Rome: I think that was part of the point. I can certainly believe that christianity arose as an opposition to Rome. But Rome won in the end, by adopting christianity officially. One might say it did so so successfully that it became the embodiment of christianity, and that the Roman Empire never died: it just turned into the Roman catholic church.

I agree with this opinion and would point out that many of the things we take for granted today all play a part in our lives because of Roman rule.

 That's exactly what happened, yes. That's why it's called the complete failure of Christianity. They failed at that goal.

Daniel chapter 2 reveals this desire. And while it tries to portray itself as being a prophecy long before the Roman empire, scholars considerably disagree. It was written during the time of Rome. And what it says is that King Nebuchadnezzar's dream was of four empires that started with Babylon and end with Rome, represented by a statue made of four different metals. Christianity is represented as a rock that comes out of nowhere, smashes the statue into pieces forever, and grows into a mountain that would fill the earth. This would be their "Kingdom of God" thingie they thought they were bringing.

I like to think of it as a bad game of Dodgeball. Remember how if you got hit by the ball you were out, but if you catch the ball, you can take others out? That "prophecy" would've been more accurate if the statue caught the rock and started flinging it at the rebellious people instead.

They actually meant "Kingdom of God" ironically, since in 2 Samuel God desired them not to have a king at all. Kind of anarchist really. Except nobody shopped at Hot Topic or listened to Green Day. But since it was supposed to be the end of empires, Christianity instead became the mascot of empires. That is how it became its own antichrist. That's why it failed. It was never supposed to force conformity and uniformity. That was the entire point of that Tower of Babel story in Genesis. If everyone is as one, then we could all destroy God. You know, because he's so all powerful and not chickenshit at all!

 As for the Original Sin, Daniel Quinn is the first I know to give us this interpretation. It explained the Genesis story (actually the 2nd one) as being told by indigenous people trying to explain the weird new thing happening east of them in Mesopotamia. That's where civilization began, which began the process of expansion and assimilation. So really, that Original Sin (which is symbolized as knowing good and evil) started. In other words, when people... when Christian people... were forcing civilization onto the indigenous of the Americas, they were not saving them at all. They were spreading Original Sin of civilization.