Mageth

Christianity grew at a time when it had no state or military power. It did not conquer its foes it won them over. It also flourished at a time when there were living witnesses who could have disputed its statements of fact. Christianity is unique in the fact that it relies almost entirely on a factual statement which subject to falsification. The fact that it flourished early on is evidence that counter evidence did not exist. Somebody suggested that how do we know anybody even cared to counter the evidence of Christianity early on. Does anyone really believe that the Jewish and Roman authorities did not care about the spread of Christianity. That is ridiculous. Rome required sacrifice to its gods as civic duty.

A lot of the same could be said about Mormonism and other religious sects. A lot of religions have survived and flourished in difficult conditions. So what? Christianity grew because it was a successful memetic system that adapted to fit to the cultures/situations it encountered. It's still doing that today.

Rome made exceptions to the state religion rules for Jews, IIRC. At first the Romans probably considered xianity nothing more than a Jewish sect. I believe they eventually allowed Christians the same luxury.

Atticus_Finch

I have two points with respect to Philo. First, we know that some of Philo's works have not been preserved. Maybe Philo did comment on Christ. Second, and more importantly, Philo mainly wrote on the Jewish law, which of his works do you suppose it would have been natural for him to comment on a current contender for the title Messiah. Finally with respect to Philo, the fact that we still have so much of his work is a testament to the fact that the Christian authorities did not destroy all non-christian works and in fact preserved them.

Regards,

Finch

madmax2976

<strong> Incorrect. Fallacious characterizations won't help your case.

I "rule him out", because his claim is so extraordinary as to be unbelievable. There is no evidence that anyone actually can rise from the dead. All the evidence we do have, which is considerable, goes against it.

Furthermore, I rule him out for the same reasons that people rule out, John Edwards and his claim he can talk with dead people, Shirley McClaine's claim that she was receincarnated, Jean Dixon's claim she could tell the future, Indian claims of visiting and communicating with their dead spirit ancestors, Wiccan claims of magic spells, Egyptian claims of Happi, and Moabite claims of Chemosh.

You'll have to do better than mere assertions, on the part of anyone past or present, to prove your case Atticus.

Atticus_Finch

I am trying to keep up with all these varied arguments. I am one you are many. This one really doesn't seem to be on point.

Frankly, I don't know a thing about the Vedas. Just looked it up on the internet and can't make heads nor tails of it. I've been working my way around to debunking that religion but I haven't gotten there yet. Spent to much time on Islam, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe next week.

Regards,

Finch

daemon

This is an ad hominem argument, and as such is fallacious. It would be better to assert jaliet's equivocation of God-concepts (yours that incorporates Trinitarian doctrine vs. his that does not), although you would likely be called to defend the Trinitarian concept as even reasonable, at least by myself.
Your first hypothesis does not appear to be relevant; the text indicates that Satan took Jesus to a locale from which all the nations of the earth could be seen, and it does not indicate that it was simply a matter of visualizing such a thing. Your second point implies a method for determining the proper interpretation of biblical passages; please illuminate us as to what that is. Failing that, I cannot see this argument being anything except an arbitrary, personal choice on your part.
It depends on who heard you. A small child might think you were being literal, as might someone who didn't understand English as a first language. I can say, from personal experience, that I have misinterpreted figurative speech for literal, and vice versa.

Mageth

"In this context, as soon as a witness says, "I talked to my dead brother through John Edward", you rule him out because he is a believer."

Damn right! Especially if he wrote about it several years ago, has died since and I never met the dude.

Atticus_Finch

Multiple attestation is support for accuracy. Peter, John, Matthew each separately attest to seeing Christ die and then rise from the dead.

Regards,

Finch.

Goliath

Atticus_Finch,

No, you have me confused with Reasonable_Doubt, I believe. For the third time, I will state my question.

You had said:

To which I replied:

Again, do you believe the "Theorem?" If I pick any two real numbers, are they equal?

If you don't believe the theorem (and I certainly hope you do not), then please point out where the proof went wrong.

Oh, and yes, this "Theorem" has everything to do with your opening post in this thread. I will await your response to my question before revealing the connection.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Atticus_Finch

False statement madmax. The evidence of the witnesses contained in the NT is evidence that at least one man (2 if you include Lazarus) rose from the dead. You just chose to ignore that evidence because you rule out the supernatural a priori.

Regards,

Finch.

Samhain

Is this a joke? Please tell me that it is, because I've been laughing at it for the past 20 minutes. Considering the widespread growth of Christianity was mainly due to "strong-arm" actions through holy wars against other countries who did not have the technological means to resist, I'd like to see how you can support the statement that it grew at a time when it had no state or military power. Unless of course it was through coersion of the weak minded by telling them they had an eternity of torment waiting for them unless they followed God...

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>