> HH: The fact that the Christian approach requires more assumptions
> does not necessarily make it weaker.
Well, you studied logic, did you? More assumptions - weaker the argument. Or
is the logic inapplicable here? Tertullian's argument about the absurdity
still relied on logic.
>The most simple idea is not
> always correct. It may overlook some important fact.
Taking the NT as a fact is itself an assumption.
>The claim of
Christianity is that God was giving new revelation through Jesus> prophesied in the OT.
Christ. The claim is that he was a prophet and in fact the Messiah
Only a prophet? Wow, you are very liberal. Every Muslim would agree with you
:)
>So the addition you speak of, "axiom B," could
actually be more truth and so could help one to understand the other> truth ("axiom A") better.
Yes, if we assume that axiom B is a truth. But, again, this is an
assumption, and makes the argument logically inferior.
Substituting logic
with belief remains the only option.
Uh, and one more thing, please: exactly what line of the NT let us
understand the Tanakh better? Just any example, please.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.