Battle of the Books: Bible and Koran discussion

[Gilrandir]

And much as you, Hollywood and Benjamin Netanyahu might like to believe, the pyramids were not built by Jewish slaves.

AFAIK, they were built not by slaves - the builders were free people who got paid for the job.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Obviously that's gotta mean something. It was their property.

Generally seen as a sign of the Roman occupation by the Jews, I think. In any case it appears that Pilate's Praetorium in Jerusalem would have been at Herod's palace, which makes more sense given the way Jesus is passed between Pilate and Herod if it's just a walk across a courtyard from one to the other.

We're not talking about a pro-Roman king. Messiah at that time meant exactly that, king of the Jews. This is how everyone had understood it.

You are correct - and the difference between the common Jewish interpretation and Jesus' message is a key thread of the Gospel narrative, it's why he's so reviled by the Pharisees.

It's settled then. Jesus disturbed the peace according to the final ruling of the governor on behalf of the empire.

No - he was executed to prevent a disturbance of the peace - but not by his followers. It's made to look like he's guilty but that doesn't mean he was. Jesus comes to represent a traditionalist Jewish faction which is also nominally pro-Roman. As a traditionalist he comes into conflict with the Sadducees and as someone who refuses to oppose Rome in any way he comes into conflict with the Pharisees.

"Holy war?" Not in the Qur'an either.

Muhammed does it, even after taking Mecca and basically winning the war. The Caliphs who come immediately after him do it, apparently following his example.

Lol. Not a fair response. No matter how different their foundations are, they are both infinitely malleable texts written for the ancient mind. It really doesn't matter what you consider to be the founder's virtue because scripture is scripture.

What would Jesus do if you slapped him?

Bless you and let you slap him again, and again, and again...

What would Muhammed do if you slapped him?

Jesus referred to his own people as children while gentiles as dogs. This is distasteful today, because it's racist. There's no moral context to it.

It's not actually clear whether he's referring to all non-Jews as dogs or if he's referencing a particular racial slur against another tribe common among the Jews historically. In any case, he refers to the woman as a "dog" and contrasts her good behaviour with the poor behaviour of the Jews he is surrounded by.

He also tells the story of the Good Samaritan when someone asks "who is my neighbour?"

[Fisherking]

@HitWithThe5, Is you OP about the dream Mohammad had about a Jewish woman trying to poison him, and these were the actions he took, or is it some other story?

[Idaho]

It's not actually clear whether he's referring to all non-Jews as dogs or if he's referencing a particular racial slur against another tribe common among the Jews historically. In any case, he refers to the woman as a "dog" and contrasts her good behaviour with the poor behaviour of the Jews he is surrounded by.

He also tells the story of the Good Samaritan when someone asks "who is my neighbour?"

All of these texts are confused and contradictory and you can selectively quote either to support your opinion (crazy or mundane) or slur the other religion. You can bring your own beliefs to each book and find them substantiated.

[AE Bravo]

You are correct - and the difference between the common Jewish interpretation and Jesus' message is a key thread of the Gospel narrative, it's why he's so reviled by the Pharisees.

He actually had mixed relations with the Pharisees. Also, I can list some of the things that show Jesus clearly disliked both the temple and Rome. You can use the Gospel to see an image of the Christ of history, and not the Christ of faith.

No - he was executed to prevent a disturbance of the peace - but not by his followers. It's made to look like he's guilty but that doesn't mean he was. Jesus comes to represent a traditionalist Jewish faction which is also nominally pro-Roman.

Not saying he was guilty. He suffered the same fate that's specifically designed for insurrectionists like I said already. I keep repeating this because it's not wrong and you still haven't said anything that invalidates it. How was he "pro-Roman" anyway..?

Muhammed does it, even after taking Mecca and basically winning the war. The Caliphs who come immediately after him do it, apparently following his example.

We were referring to the Qur'an. There's more to the Rashidun caliphate, and it is wrong to assume that they followed in his footsteps considering their quarrels and huge departure from his style of governance.

What would Jesus do if you slapped him?

Bless you and let you slap him again, and again, and again...

What would Muhammed do if you slapped him?

Nothing. Did you miss the story where the hometown crowd flung shit at him en masse after declaring prophethood?

It's not actually clear whether he's referring to all non-Jews as dogs or if he's referencing a particular racial slur against another tribe common among the Jews historically.

I'm pretty sure it's all non-Jews. It's quite clear in the Gospel that Jesus was preaching to his own people and nobody else.

Is you OP about the dream Mohammad had about a Jewish woman trying to poison him, and these were the actions he took, or is it some other story?

I don't think that was a dream, and I'm not sure about the hadith's historicity. OP was about Banu Qurayza, where Muhammad appointed a judge who executed 700 people of Qurayza clan and enslaved the women and children.

[AE Bravo]

Also take your bible blinders off. He was most certainly a rebel one way or another.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All of these texts are confused and contradictory and you can selectively quote either to support your opinion (crazy or mundane) or slur the other religion. You can bring your own beliefs to each book and find them substantiated.

This is true to a point - but it's less true the more context you have.

IS are a great example of this - also no witches in the Bible - so we'll have to suffer them, unless they engage in necromancy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He actually had mixed relations with the Pharisees. Also, I can list some of the things that show Jesus clearly disliked both the temple and Rome. You can use the Gospel to see an image of the Christ of history, and not the Christ of faith.

Please - roll forth with the anti-Roman quotes.

Not saying he was guilty. He suffered the same fate that's specifically designed for insurrectionists like I said already. I keep repeating this because it's not wrong and you still haven't said anything that invalidates it. How was he "pro-Roman" anyway..?

Jesus suffered the standard punishment for those who disturbed the Pax Romana. In his case he did that by "stirring up trouble" but most of the trouble he stirred up was with his opponents. Remember, Romans were want to issue summary executions to all gentiles who threatened the peace - Crucifixion ceased to be a punishment exclusively for rebels and increasingly it became the standard punishment for non-Romans, later replaced by hanging which became the standard punishment for everyone in the middle ages.

We were referring to the Qur'an. There's more to the Rashidun caliphate, and it is wrong to assume that they followed in his footsteps considering their quarrels and huge departure from his style of governance.

Nothing. Did you miss the story where the hometown crowd flung shit at him en masse after declaring prophethood?

No, I didn't - I also didn't miss all the raids against people he thought were going to steal his camels.

I'm pretty sure it's all non-Jews. It's quite clear in the Gospel that Jesus was preaching to his own people and nobody else.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's referring to Caananites specifically whom the Israelites colloquially called dogs. You can see this episode and the parable of the Good Samaritan as episodes of racism if you wish but in both cases Jesus uses the episodes to subvert the Jewish idea of exclusive access to God as his "chosen people".

If you read the Gospels Jesus says several times that his ministry is a sort of performance, he's creating his story to contain his message.

[Brenus]

Just a short intervention, as really, the debate about people wandering in the desert without hat, food, water and eating too much mushrooms (blue with red spots)....
The Roman recognised only one religion having only one god so be exempted of Rome religious rules: The Jews. So, when Jesus Christ, according to books written 30 years (or more) after his alleged death/resurrection (meaning the guys reporting are around 60), claimed to be the start of a new religion, he became a rebel against Rome. As a Jew, he didn't.

[Idaho]

This is true to a point - but it's less true the more context you have.

IS are a great example of this - also no witches in the Bible - so we'll have to suffer them, unless they engage in necromancy.

Christians have found biblical justification for slavery, murder, torture, conquest, etc. Islam has had a few flowerings of the suicide/death cult and has been used as justification for war and slavery. Jews use their chosen people status to dehumanise and drive people off land that they want to take over. It's all so tedious.

I am not one who believes all religion is bad. I think it can be a great cause for good. However as soon as people start picking apart each other's texts to justify prejudice, division and mistrust - it's throwing stones in glass houses.