Early opponents of Christianity (was Re: Question for DJC)

Ronie Mooney ronie@InfoAve.Net
Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:32:51 -0400 (00902172771, 000201bdbf00$c702da00$8abe74cc@ronie-s-) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland <kirra@powerup.com.au>
To: Errancy <errancy@infidels.org>
Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Early opponents of Christianity (was Re: Question for DJC)


CONKLIN

The very earliest opponents of Christianity are either named in the NT or
aren't named.  They would have had the greatest effect on the growth of
Christianity if they could have pointed out that the Christians were
mis-using the OT.
DAVID MOONEY
   The very earliest opponents of Mormonism ...would have had the greatest
effect on the growth of Mormonism if they could have pointed out that the
Mormons were mis-using the Bible.
CONKLIN
 If the charge of distortion was true then Christianity
would have died very quickly.  If, however, all participants at that time
recognized that the method was legitimate then the charge wouldn't have
been made, or if it had, stuck.
DAVID MOONEY
  If the charge of distortion (were) true then Mormonism would have died very
quickly. If, however, all participants at that time recognized that the method
was legitimate then the charge wouldn't have been made, or if it had, stuck.
CONKLIN
 The fact that Christianity was able to
survive and thrive while in Judea (they didn't flee Jerusalem till ab't 68
A.D.) indicates that everyone recognized that there was no problem with how
OT texts were being used.

DAVE MOONEY
  The fact that Mormonism was able to survive while in America...indicates that
everyone recognized that there was no problem with how the (Bible) texts were
being used.
********************************************************************************
*************
 The above same argument can be re-worded to include Jehovah Witnesses and their
translation of John 1:1 and other passages in the NT that imply the deity of
Jesus. Where Conklin uses OT just substitute NT and you get the point.
DAVE MOONEY
As I thought.

The argument is that because Christianity survived as a religion it must
have had a solid foundation - i,e, the historical facts and the use of the
OT were all valid otherwise no one would have become Christians.

This is the basis of your argument?


Steve Carson-Rowland
Queensland, Australia

"See you in the next life... NOT." Epicurus, modern translation.
"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing."
Ecclesiasties 9:5