> It strains credulity to the breaking point to think
> that
> Christ's followers would go to death for him if he had not risen from the
> dead. Perhaps one could have lost it and gone to his death for a lie; but
> all
> of them? Hardly."
Pim responded:
> That is hardly a convincing argument since the same could be used to show
> that the Hindus are correct or the Islam or .... After all why else would
> people risk death in the name of their religion if their religion was not
> the 'only and true one" ?
This contention is erroneous, and thus only confirms my point. The followers
of Muhammed were not in danger of death. The very opposite! After Muhammed's
emigration to Medina in 622, he was GREETED as a religious and military
leader. Within a few years he had established control of the surrounding
region, and in 630 he conquered Mecca. This popular and military confluence
was precisely what was missing in the case of Jesus.
Hinduism developed over about thousands of years and has no single founder or
creed. Its rise is thus nothing like that of Christianity.
Jim