Replies

I see no particular exclusivity to the claim that any of these reasons would justification for being Catholic. Christian in general, possibly, but Catholic? Why? That said, however....

2. Other than I AM of the Old Testament, no other founder of a religion is comparable to Jesus.

Quite incorrect. Looking aside, for a moment, that it is easily debatable that Jesus founded no religion, the parallels between he and the Buddha are manifold and obvious.

No authoritative spokesperson for any non Christian religion claims that its founder or reformer is comparable to Jesus in the way he manifested the authority of the Creator including his power over death itself.

Claptrap. This is posing the question in a dishonest light from the get-go. No 'authoritative' 'spokesperson'? And what is this based on? How does one know that such a person doesn't make the claim?

3. History affirms the Jesus of the Bible

Surely. But it affirms none of the miracles attributed to him, co-opted from earlier traditions.

Looking aside, for a moment, that it is easily debatable that Jesus founded no religion, the parallels between he and the Buddha are manifold and obvious.

Really? Did the Buddha claim he was God, was the Buddha's life and death prophesied? Was the Buddha born into royalty ( compared to Jesus' meager upbringing)? The dissimilarities are more obvious. What are the parrallels that should be obvious to me?

No the claptrap is what you have just asserted: that history does not affirm Christ's miracles. What rationalists do when they claim this is to reason backwards. Since they believe miracles can't happen, they come to the conclusion the Gospels must lack historical validity. But this contradicts the rules of the historical methods used for determining the historicity of other ancient documents. The Gospels clearly deserve to be judged like these, not according to rules especially devised to deal specifically with them.