Battle of the Books: Bible and Koran discussion

[AE Bravo]

Muhammed could still have shown them mercy but he chose not to.

As far as they were concerned it was god’s will. They chose a judge from an allied tribe and were put to death for collective sedition. Their women and children spared, way better than the way Romans treated Jews.

1 - They weren’t executed by mere virtue of being Jewish
2 - Unlike the Jewish revolts (Alexander, Herod reign), no crucifixion and slaughter of women and children
3 - Banishment would have added about 400-700 men to an already stronger Meccan army
4 - The protection pact between pagan, Jewish, and Muslim clans was broken by them
5 - Qurayza occupied an integral stronghold south of the city, with the Meccan army regularly invading the north

Twice were they abandoned by their allies, basically I’d assume as a result of perceived treachery and lack of honor. First they were abandoned by the Makkan army, second by the judge which the betrayed Muslims were kind enough to allow them to determine. They could have easily avoided their fate and their biggest blunder was choosing a judge who would later die from the wounds they had caused him beforehand, who cited Deuteronomy 20:12 in the ruling.

Overall this whole event actually improved relations between Muslims and Jews for a time, a multiethnic and multi religious Medina/Yathrib was officially established.
We sent down the Torah, in which there is guidance and light, by which the Prophets who surrendered to God's will provided judgments for the Jewish people. Also, the rabbis and doctors of the Law (did likewise), according to that portion of God's Book with which they were entrusted, and they became witnesses to it as well…. Whoever does not judge by what God has sent down (including the Torah), they are indeed unbelievers (5:44)

If you're asking if I blame the Jews throughout the Empire then no, but I think that those who went to war against Rome are responsible for their own actions just as the Roman legionaries are responsible for destroying the Temple.

Jesus was a Jew and went to war with Rome. Crucifixion is for enemies of the state.

As this relates to Muslims, weren't all Muslims more or less part of Muhammed's tribe at this time? Presumably the Muslims were under his command, under arms, and they did the killing.

No, most of Muhammad’s clan was in the Makkan army. They wanted his head for what they saw as asserting his branch over theirs. They would not pledge loyalty to a Hashemite merchant.

For my birthday Montmercy sent me an essay on Pharaoh's refusal to let the people go and free will. In the case of Moses, he kills someone, flees into the desert and then becomes a prophet and one of the most visible avatars of God's will, what he does he does at the behest and with the power of the Lord.

Point still stands that the enactors of god’s will can make mistakes because they are men. Most prophets did not start out as bad men, yet Moses pre-prophethood is more in the grey area. Again, he murdered someone and god chose him. The first prophet and human being in scripture is the original sinner so no surprise that his successors follow suit in their lifetimes.

Well, then one might as well say that Muhammed never existed and it's just a story - that's a popular belief among Atheists.

The Koran is different to the Bible in a number of ways, the Koran is essentially one book, not many, one man's biography supposedly transcribed during his lifetime. There's no reason to believe the narrative is in any way allegorical.

I don’t think it’s a popular belief among atheists. There is no doubt that Muhammad existed. Qur’an is not the biography of Muhammad, nor is he really the main character in it. Egyptian historians would’ve picked up on how their god-king ended or if this mountain disappeared, this is why some parts of it may well be symbolic.

Even the chapter titles lead you to believe in the allegorical approach to scripture.
“The Spider”
“Night Journey”
“Gold”
“Smoke”
“Wind that scatter”
“The Cloaked One”

Actually, both the terms "Prophet" (Speaker) and "Messiah" (Anointed) describe Muhammed perfectly. He was, according to the Islamic tradition, the one appointed by God to give people the correct instruction and way of living that most please God.

Note that Jesus is far from unique in being called "Messiah" because that appellation was applied by the Jews to Prophets and Kings they believed to be chosen by God - including the Persian Cyrus the Great.

My point, in any case, is that Muhammed is presumably the model for a Muslim man (correct me if I'm wrong) and, as a Christian, I find little to recommend him compared to other men.

On a personal level he carried the most admirable traits at the time. Women were treated far worse before Islam came around. There is a lot to admire in the spiritual and moral side, but equally just as much on the prudent and political side of Muhammad. Jesus was the chosen before he was even born, Muhammad was about 40 when the message came to him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Jesus was a Jew and went to war with Rome. Crucifixion is for enemies of the state."

The fact he was innocent of all charges is the central plank of Christianity, that a guiltless man tied and went to hell as substitute for all the sins of humanity.

There is no evidence, not one iota, that Jesus in any way opposed Rome. Indeed, Jesus was far more pro-Roman than most Jews because he had no interest in earthly political realities.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

When Pilate said, "they say you are a King" Jesus said "they say it" and then "My Kingdom is not of this World."

The wiping out of an entire tribe by murdering all the men is a form of genocide, by enslaving or adopting the women and children the Muslims ensured the tribe's destruction.

You can't dress that up in enough silk and jewels enough to make it look Just. Nor is this the only time Muhammed enacted vengeance on another tribe for a perceived or expected slight rather than an actual offence. Wikipedia lists a hundred battles and raids of the Muslims under Muhammed, from raiding caravans and attacking people for looking at Muhammed's camels funny to attacks to force other Arab tribes to embrace Islam and follow Muhammed, up to the opening salvoes of the Muslims conquest of the Empire.

This is not "the Religion of peace"

When I asked weren't all Muslims part of Muhammed's tribe I meant that he was their King, and they were to all intents and purposes a tribe or a confederation of tribes, not that they were Muhammed's blood-kin per se. The point is that I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that the killings of all these men were carried out by Muslims.

One notes that Adam is not the original sinner - Eve is according to the Torah, unless the sin if not the deed but hiding it from God - in which case the "first" sinner is ambiguous. As to Prophet's making mistakes - I'm fairly certain that can only happen "if God wills it", I know Islam has a phrase for that - but I can't spell it. In any case, I don't think Muslims theology is anywhere near as fuzzy on free will as Christian theology is.

Ah ha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshallah

"Muslims believe that everything is maktub (lit. "written") and so whatever it is one wishes to do, will only occur if it is within God's plan."

That sounds right to me, given that central to Islam is "submission" to God.

as to Muhammed not existing - I can tell you that is most definitely a popular belief among modern atheists - along with the belief that Jesus didn't exist.

[AE Bravo]

Jesus always knew that his movement was too powerful for Rome, and he was the founder of a new world order. You can dress that up in silk and jewels but it doesn't change the fact that he was an enemy of the state, a revolutionary, and dissident.

I feel like I'm wasting my time with you. You believe that this is an easy argument to make due to the highly politicized foundations of Islam.

If you want me to admit that Islam had been built by politics and fitna, you'll find no argument here. But for you to come out and make fun of Muhammad because the time and place he was in is not consistent with yours is ignorant. That you think Muslims are inevitably following that same path shows your static image of Muslims, and frankly you're not worth persuading.

You show no introspection of Christianity, just a weak "my book is better than yours" mind. I expected a Christian to show more self-examination than a Muslim. Guess not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oooow, ouch.

Maybe I should stop transcribing my Gospel and reply. Maybe I shouldn't, I probably shouldn't but I will because I'm a bad person.

Here's the thing - if you read the Gospels then you can see - very clearly - that Jesus is uninterested in the politics of the world - he even says in the gospel of Mark that he doesn't perform miracles to help people but to convince them that he wields God's power. The core message is "It doesn't matter who you were in life, what you did, how old you were or how late you came to God so long as you came to God."

Jesus is not a rebel and he does not oppose the Roman State, he is apathetic towards it, unlike the Jewish Temple which he DOES actively oppose. There is nothing in the Gospel to suggest that "Jesus always knew that his movement was too powerful for Rome, and he was the founder of a new world order." because Christianity isn't like that. See, this is what you're missing - Christianity isn't actually about life on Earth. It's not really about how you lived, it's about how you died.

Now, if you want to argue that the Roman may have had reason to execute him then you would, in fact, be correct from their point of view. One of the things the Emperor Augustus instituted was the "Imperial Cult" which involved worshipping the Emperor's "Genius", what we might call the "angle on his shoulder" and in the Eastern Provinces this was often simplified as simply worshipping the Emperor as a living God. So, refusing to worship the Emperor's Genius was a form of treason because it implied you did not have goodwill to the Emperor.

Now, according to Roman philosophy Jews were "atheists" because, from the Roman point of view, all Gods existed. When the Romans encountered a new people they either assimilated the local God as aspects of Rome's Gods or they added new minor deities to their pantheon. For Polytheists monotheists are inherently dangerous and closed minded. Obviously, Christians were subject to the same criticisms as Jews - neither believed in the Gods of other people or places, angering those Gods, and neither would worship the Emperor's Genius.

The difference between Christians and Jews was that whilst the Jews mostly kept to themselves and were not wont to induct new members into their perverse Cult the Christians went around preaching and trying to convert everyone, this threatened the stability of the state not only by potentially fracturing Roman public life (which was centred around religious ritual) but also by converting the slaves and potentially triggering another servile war.

For these reasons Christians were sporadically (but not consistently) persecuted until the time of Constantine the Great who publicly endorsed Christianity and favoured it over the traditional Roman religion.

So, yes, one might argue that the Romans had reason to execute Jesus because his religious movement threatened the State. However, there are two points you are missing.

1. This does not make Jesus an enemy of the State, and in fact Christians did not generally cause a problem for the Roman State either during Jesus's lifetime or after his death. In fact, I'm not aware of any riots with a specifically Christian element until after Christianity essentially became the State Religion and Christians became the majority.

2. During Jesus' lifetime the Christian movement was a movement within Judaism, it was only after Jesus' death that the Jews began branching out and converting good, decent Roman Citizens (most Jews in this period were non Citizens, I believe Paul was the only Apostle who was a Roman).

In summation, the only motive, according to the Christian Gospel, that the Romans had for killing Jesus was to resolve the developing schism in Judaism by beheading one of the factions and thus preventing a revolt in Palestine.

This is not generally accepted to have been a just reason to kill him and, indeed, central to the Gospel is the belief that Jesus died guiltless. Now, my understanding of the Islamic version is that Jesus does not die (but another man dies in his place) precisely because he does not deserve death. Now, I personally think that makes a mockery of the Gospel and raises serious questions about God's Goodness because a man still died, and he still wasn't guilty, it just wasn't Jesus.

A final point, it is (somewhat depressingly) possible to argue that Christianity itself has had little effect on the power structures in the countries where it has remained a dominant religion. Whilst I think it's fair to say that the belief in "Christian mercy" has had some impact, such as during the sack of Rome and after the siege of Jerusalem it never established a "New World Order" that happened after the Germanic Tribes breached the Western Limes and then later after the Arabs breached the South Eastern Limes but, in terms of administration there's little to divide Diocletian from Constantine or later genuinely Christian Emperors like Theodosius.

[Gilrandir]

Christianity isn't actually about life on Earth. It's not really about how you lived, it's about how you died.

This is what exasperates me most about Christianity: you can live the life of a scoundrel and repent of it on your deathbed - and pop you go into heavens. But if you are a nice person who is an atheist - heaven is closed for you. Sounds like some kind of organization - if you aren't a member you can't enjoy the facilities.

The difference between Christians and Jews was that whilst the Jews mostly kept to themselves and were not wont to induct new members into their perverse Cult the Christians went around preaching and trying to convert everyone.

Early to bed, early to rise makes no use until you advertise?

[AE Bravo]

1. This does not make Jesus an enemy of the State

You're confused because this isn't up for debate.

1. An attack on the Jewish nobility is an attack on Rome given their tight relationship

2. "Render unto Caesar" which you tried to dress up, and "The Land is mine" (Leviticus 25:23). “Forbidding the paying of tribute to Rome” (Luke 23:2) which he himself doesn’t deny

3. He’s crucified alongside bandits. He was not a particularly unique individual of his time either given that hundreds of prophets and zealots came before and after him.

4. His family rejected his teachings and his hometown people tried to kill him, no doubt for his perceived sedition and poorly received religious innovations.

5. Apostles’ symbolic function as the twelve tribes of Israel and the “Kingdom of God” concept is a revolt against Rome/Caesar. Call to a revolution.

2. During Jesus' lifetime the Christian movement was a movement within Judaism

No doubt that Jesus was a Jew. He only knew one god and that is the one in the Torah. You don't have to explain this to me, explain it to yourself.

Now, my understanding of the Islamic version is that Jesus does not die

There is more than one version. Many Muslims don't believe in resurrection. The version I know is that he and Judas trade places.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're confused because this isn't up for debate.

No, it isn't - but you're wrong.

1. An attack on the Jewish nobility is an attack on Rome giving their tight relationship

2. "Render unto Caesar" which you tried to dress up, and "The Land is mine" (Leviticus 25:23). “Forbidding the paying of tribute to Rome” (Luke 23:2) which he himself doesn’t deny

Funny how you're quoting verses, not chapters, read the rest of that sections, for us, will you?

Luke 20 establishes demonstrates' Jesus opposition to the Temple authorities, and he obliqueily threatens them with destructions because they do not follow him. In Luke 20.20-26 they try to turn oppositionagainst them into opposition against Rome and Jesus says, " 'Show me the denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?....Then give to the Emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." So they try to entrap him, and they fail - Jesus will not be drawn into their petty political bickering - because of course many among the Temple at least tacitly supported the Zealots and most chafed under the Roman yoke.

Then, in Luke 22 Jesus is arrested, one of the Diciples (Peter in the other Gospels) strikes off the ear of the servant of the High Priest, Jesus heals the man and admonishes his disciple. Later, in Luke 23 they bring him before Pilate and they lay the charges (the part you quoted which was anticipated in Luke 20 and already shown to be false). Pilate's response is, " I find no basis for an accusation against this man." Pilate says this three times, but the mob harangue him until he agrees to have Jesus Crucified.

Luke is very clear on this point - Pilate did not believe Jesus guilty, he had him crucified because he feared an insurrection otherwise.

Mark (15) is very sparing on the details, it says only that the Jews accused him and Pilate asked "Are you the King of the Jews?" and Jesus said "You say so" which in the original Hebrew can be interpreted several ways but roughly as "you say it as though it is true". Later, in Mark 15.10 during the episode where Pilate offers to release Jesus it says "For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests handed him over".

Matthew 27.11-23 agrees with Mark and Luke (Mark came before Matthew and Luke came after, so that's not so surprising) but it adds this (27.24) "So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying 'I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves'"

So, the three synoptic Gospels all agree that Pilate deemed him innocent of any charge against Rome, and there is plenty in each Gospel leading up to this point to support that, but he has him executed to placate the Jewish religious authorities. John is roughly the same, though in John Pilate accepts that Jesus is the King of the Jews and is still happy to release him. The Jews claim they "have no King but the Emperor" but this is patent nonsense because the Emperor is not, in any way, a King and Rome had many client Kings it supported - such as Herod.

The implication in John is that Pilate would be happy to acknowledge Jesus as the "King of the Jews" because Jesus poses no political threat to Rome - the threat is from the Jews who are on the verge of rioting.

That's what the Gospels say - you may say the Gospels are wrong or lying but they are all explicit that Jesus was not an enemy of Rome, he was apathetic.

3. He’s crucified alongside bandits. He was not a particularly unique individual of his time either given that hundreds of prophets and zealots came before and after him.

According to the Gospel the manner of his death is the manner the JEws demanded - it was unjust and it does not make him an enemy of Rome. In every Gospel Pilate, the personification of Roman government, says he does not deserve death.

4. His family rejected his teachings and his hometown people tried to kill him, no doubt for his perceived sedition and poorly received religious innovations.

Not relevant to your point, speaks to the idea this was an internal Jewish religious argument.

5. Apostles’ symbolic function as the twelve tribes of Israel and the “Kingdom of God” concept is a revolt against Rome/Caesar. Call to a revolution.

This is your interpretation, it is not the Christian interpretation and it is not even an interpretation held by such classical historians living in the century after Jesus' death, such as Pliny, Tacitus or Josephus. Note that Christians did not participate in the Jewish revolt following Jesus' death.

No doubt that Jesus was a Jew. He only knew one god and that is the one in the Torah. You don't have to explain this to me, explain it to yourself.

Now who's engaging in "my religion is better"? You want me to explain Trinitarianism to you? Of course Jesus was a Jew, he was a Jewish Rabbi, he may have been married to the sister of an important Jewish nobleman.

There is more than one version. Many Muslims don't believe in resurrection. The version I know is that he and Judas trade places.

I believe the most common version is that Simon of Cyrene took his place, which I find excessively cruel on the part of God.

All this started because you said Islam was the "Religion of Peace" and they I pointed out that Muhammed was a Warlord and contrasted this with Jesus who was, most definitely, a pacifist.

First you tried to argue Muhammed only went to war defensively, when that didn't work you deflected on the issue of his 9-year old wife, now you're trying to paint Jesus as some sort of radical political revolutionary, and I don't think even the Koran supports that interpretation of his life. In fact, Hoahguy may correct me, I don't think even Rabbinical tradition would need to paint him in such a light, it is sufficient that he is a false prophet for him to be executed.

You accused me of mocking Muhammed, I did no such thing - as a King he's fairly admirable and certainly impressively successful. I simply took issue with describing a warrior as a "Man of Peace". I just took the time to write you a nearly 900 word essay to explain to you, quite politely I thought, that you are incorrect and that Jesus is not presented as a revolutionary.

All I got back from you was about a hundred odd words and some poorly chosen Gospel quote taken out of context and made to seem as though they mean something they actually don't.

[AE Bravo]

You can't blame me for presenting Jesus in the same lens you used for Muhammad. I don't remember to which question he answered "I am," but it was either "are you the king of the Jews?" or "are you the Messiah?," both of which are treasonous assertions. Now you can use the Gospel to (in your mind) access Jesus self-consciousness, but that's not the way to look at the historical Jesus. Whether Pilate had his hand forced or not isn't important because he carried out the sentence in the end, and correct me if I'm wrong hated Jews since he showed little regard for their lives and customs. The fact that the Gospel writers toned down the revolutionary rhetoric used by Jesus is proof that Jesus overstepped his boundaries when it came to the business of the temple and Rome's sovereignty.

People declared him king, disrupting the sanctity of temples, forces that marched to arrest him, and the punishment of crucifixion is solid evidence that he was engaged in what is perceived to be then as criminal activity. If you think Jesus is (from a purely historical perspective) absolved of his actions, than previous false messiahs would also carry that same legacy no?

Crimes that warrant crucifixion: treason, rebellion, sedition, banditry aka those who challenge the empire

So answer me this, why Twelve apostles?

All this started because you said Islam was the "Religion of Peace" and they I pointed out that Muhammed was a Warlord and contrasted this with Jesus who was, most definitely, a pacifist.

Well first I made it clear that it is a religion of peace after making the distinction between the message and the messenger. The messenger was not peaceful, but Islam by definition does not mean "submission" but rather peace. For me, it is a religion of peace and its vision is of peace no doubt about it.

First you tried to argue Muhammed only went to war defensively

I stand by it.

you deflected on the issue of his 9-year old wife

I did not. He married her. This is a problem for you, not for me.

Greeks invented anal and samurai had the Shudo tradition. What's your point? It was only 10 years later they were intimate.

I simply took issue with describing a warrior as a "Man of Peace".

Fair enough.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can't blame me for presenting Jesus in the same lens you used for Muhammad.

Well, no, because I used Islamic scripture to demonstrate Muhammed waged war. Unlike Muhammed nobody writes about Jesus within living memory except the Apostles. Josephus is the first non-Christian to mention him (in passing) and his opinion is so positive it's been deemed a fraudulent insertion, because Josephus was a Jew and positive opinions of Christians among Jews in that period were, so far as we know, non-existent. The only-near contemporary sources for Jesus' life are the Gospels and epistles. We weren't even sure "Pontius Pilate" was a real name until they found an inscription less than a decade ago.

What you're doing is trying to read things into the Gospels that simply aren't there because the Gospel tells us what Jesus is supposed to be thinking and why he does things. You can argue the Gospels are just wrong but you can't read them and see the things you're pointing to.

I don't remember to which question he answered "I am," but it was either "are you the king of the Jews?" or "are you the Messiah?," both of which are treasonous assertions.

Jesus says "I am" once in Mark when they ask if he is the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed one. Otherwise he says "You say it" when questioned. That can be taken one of two ways, all the Gospels agree though that he never admits to any of the charges laid against he - the Jews just take his "you say it" as an admission.

In the same Gospel of Mark Pilate accepts that Jesus is the Messiah and still judges him guiltless.

Now you can use the Gospel to (in your mind) access Jesus self-consciousness, but that's not the way to look at the historical Jesus.

Well, there is no "historical Jesus" outside the Gospel, you can argue that the accounts we have are hopelessly biased but they're all we have. Granted, there are many more than the four "Canonical Gospels" but those remain the earliest.

Whether Pilate had his hand forced or not isn't important because he carried out the sentence in the end, and correct me if I'm wrong hated Jews since he showed little regard for their lives and customs.

The Gospel of Matthew records that Pilate's wife begged him not to kill Jesus because of a prophetic dream about the "innocent man", and there is a tradition she was a Jew by conversion. Judaism was a "Cult" that many wealthy Romans might flirt with. As far as Pilate's disregarding of Jewish tradition, I have never heard that. He defies the priests by referring to Jesus as the King of the Jews and the Messiah but he also says this is no reason to crucify him.

You can take three things from this -

1. Pilate was not concerned about Jesus as a Jewish King given his political apathy and willingness to obey Roman Law.

2. Jesus never actually referred to himself in this way and nor did Pilate.

3. Pilate actually executed Jesus for being the King of the Jews.

One could make any of the three arguments - but the Gospel only supports argument one and there are no alternative sources so arguments for 2 and 3 basically come down to "It couldn't have happened like that".

The fact that the Gospel writers toned down the revolutionary rhetoric used by Jesus is proof that Jesus overstepped his boundaries when it came to the business of the temple and Rome's sovereignty.

You have no evidence the Gospel-writers toned down anything. Your argument that Jesus opposed Rome doesn't fit with the rest of his teachings, and is not supported by the Gospel. The only piece of evidence you have to support your argument is his execution - which all the Gospels agree Pilate carried out to prevent a riot and not because he believed Jesus was guilty of anything.

Consider this passage:

John 18.36

Jesus Answered, 'Mr Kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.'

Interestingly - the Jews make the same argument you do in John 18.30 'If this man were not a criminal...'

People declared him king, disrupting the sanctity of temples, forces that marched to arrest him, and the punishment of crucifixion is solid evidence that he was engaged in what is perceived to be then as criminal activity.

By the Temple, not by Rome. Bear in mind that the Jewish community in Palestine had special status due to historical alliance with Rome and Palestine was a special Imperial Prefecture and not a normal province.

Crucifixion is the Roman equivalent of stoning, which is the punishment proscribed in the Torah for false Prophets.

If you think Jesus is (from a purely historical perspective) absolved of his actions, than previous false messiahs would also carry that same legacy no?

I don't believe he was guilty of sedition against Rome, and I don't believe previous religious Mystics were either. Anyone crying "rise up, rise up!" was seditious, though. This is a recurring theme in the Gospels, Jesus refusal to oppose Rome is one of the reasons given for Judas' betrayal.

Crimes that warrant crucifixion: treason, rebellion, sedition, banditry aka those who challenge the empire

Under the Empire Crucifixion was routinely employed against Gentiles, not Citizens, who were subject to summary judgement under Roman magistrates. This was the punishment the Temple asked for, it was the punishment Pilate gave them.

If you are going to argue he was actually guilty you might as well argue he was never crucified but let go.

So answer me this, why Twelve apostles?

For the Twelve Tribes, obviously. He's also called Joshua in Hebrew and his tour of Palestine roughly tracks with the route Joshua took when he conquered Israel. This does not make Jesus a revolutionary against Rome, it makes him a revolutionary against the Temple, because it's them he's fighting.

Well first I made it clear that it is a religion of peace after making the distinction between the message and the messenger. The messenger was not peaceful, but Islam by definition does not mean "submission" but rather peace. For me, it is a religion of peace and its vision is of peace no doubt about it.

And I made the point that Muhammed fights wars of conversion, or more accurately he sends armed forces to destroy idles and demand submission to Islam from non-aligned tribes, and if they resist there is fighting.

I stand by it.

Wikipedia list 100 battles Muslims were involved in during Muhammed's lifetime, even allowing that the list can be trimmed by eliminating several as "non battles" there are still a fair number of armed expeditions to demand submission or to destroy idles after the fall of Mecca, it is hard to argue these are truly "defensive".

I did not. He married her. This is a problem for you, not for me.

The oldest tradition says he married her at 6 or 7 and consummated the marriage when she was 9, possibly 10 - you have to go to a much later source to get an age deemed acceptable by modern standards.

You very clearly tried to deflect my from this point by saying it's "not in scripture".

Greeks invented anal and samurai had the Shudo tradition. What's your point? It was only 10 years later they were intimate.

Fair enough.

I don't think the Greeks invented anything, and if they did someone should tell the Afghans they've gone Greek.

[AE Bravo]

You can argue the Gospels are just wrong but you can't read them and see the things you're pointing to.

That's true. It's still a historically legitimate argument though.

Well, there is no "historical Jesus" outside the Gospel

1. He existed (?)
2. He was crucified

The second is already a lot to go by and enough for a historical overview of Jesus the man.

Of the three things you brought up I'd say 1 and 3 are tied together. It was the question in 3 that sealed his fate iirc.

By the Temple, not by Rome.

Here's where I believe you're wrong. Jesus wasn't stoned to death like Stephen, he was crucified by Rome. This was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. I see what you're saying but in the grand scheme of things it was the Romans that allowed this to happen and decorated it with their marks - the crux.

I actually agree that it was more a rebellion against the "imperial prefecture" and temple authorities than Rome, but in hindsight this was a crime against the state and was treated like one.

For the Twelve Tribes, obviously. He's also called Joshua in Hebrew and his tour of Palestine roughly tracks with the route Joshua took when he conquered Israel. This does not make Jesus a revolutionary against Rome

Isaiah 11:11-16 so I don't look like I'm taking things out of context.

And I made the point that Muhammed fights wars of conversion, or more accurately he sends armed forces to destroy idles and demand submission to Islam from non-aligned tribes, and if they resist there is fighting.

Makkah was the mission. We know for Meccans started the war and denied pilgrimage. Conversion wasn't as important as you'd think, there were way too many fake conversions that led to betrayals. Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah after occupying it, this is true. You can criticize the origins of Islam as being immoral or whatever but it's very clear that Muslims won the moral high ground in their approach to governance and warfare.

there are still a fair number of armed expeditions to demand submission or to destroy idles after the fall of Mecca, it is hard to argue these are truly "defensive".

The usual post-occupation endeavors. Muhammad, even before Islam, was known for the "Abrahamic way" of life. Meaning no idols.

You very clearly tried to deflect my from this point by saying it's "not in scripture".

"Well, if it's a sacred and inviolable text then presumably it all happened as described. Which means the Prophet married a 9-year-old girl "

This is what you said. I then made it clear that this is not in scripture like you seem to have implied.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's true. It's still a historically legitimate argument though.

To a point, but it's not a strong one. Jesus lived during the reign of Tiberius, thousands of innocent men died.

1. He existed (?)
2. He was crucified

The second is already a lot to go by and enough for a historical overview of Jesus the man.

It's nothing, it just means he was crucified which tells you nothing but that he was convicted of a crime and executed by the Romans. It doesn't tell you why he was executed by the Romans, the Gospel explanation that it was done to placate a restive mob is entirely plausible. Tiberius would not have looked kindly on a Prefect who allowed a revolt in Jerusalem.

It doesn't need to be more complex than that. Granted, it COULD be more complex but the canonical explanation is sufficient.

Here's where I believe you're wrong. Jesus wasn't stoned to death like Stephen, he was crucified by Rome. This was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. I see what you're saying but in the grand scheme of things it was the Romans that allowed this to happen and decorated it with their marks - the crux.

Excellent point - it looks like the Romans killed him rather than the Jews. The Chief Priests tell Pilate that they are forbidden to give anyone the death sentence. I confess I'm not sure of the niceties here but what is true is that if Jesus had been stoned that likely would have caused a riot among the Jews there and then and it would have been impossible for the temple to blame Rome.

This is not to say Pilate is not responsible, he is because he could have just said "no" and be done with it, but that doesn't mean Pilate thought Jesus was guilty - it just means he saw executing him as expedient vs Justice.

I actually agree that it was more a rebellion against the "imperial prefecture" and temple authorities than Rome, but in hindsight this was a crime against the state and was treated like one.

There's no rebellion at all though, the only act of violence Jesus commits is when he chases the money lenders out of the Temple and correctly castigates the priests for letting them set up shop in the Lord's house. Jesus sets himself against the current ruling faction in the Jewish Temple but that's not unique, he has that in common with the Pharisees who ultimately rejected him. The Romans seemed quite happy, in the main, for the Jews to fight out their religious conflicts among themselves so long as they paid their taxes - and Jesus advocated paying your taxes.

Isaiah 11:11-16 so I don't look like I'm taking things out of context.

Makkah was the mission. We know for Meccans started the war and denied pilgrimage. Conversion wasn't as important as you'd think, there were way too many fake conversions that led to betrayals. Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah after occupying it, this is true. You can criticize the origins of Islam as being immoral or whatever but it's very clear that Muslims won the moral high ground in their approach to governance and warfare.

I think you're right - the message was the important thing, and Muhammed used warfare as a tool to spread it. I don't believe the Prophet is separate from his Prophecy though - according to Muslim theology all proceeds as God wills, so if Muhammed was not meant to make war God would have prevented it.

Iy ou want to argue that Islamis a religion for Good living and good governance, including over subject peoples then I would agree with you but it is not a "Religion of Peace" theologically because Muslims Peace it achieved via warfare and defeat of God's enemies.

The usual post-occupation endeavors. Muhammad, even before Islam, was known for the "Abrahamic way" of life. Meaning no idols.

Well, on the one hand, this is nothing extraordinary for a conquering power and on the other these passages in the Koran are why there's nothing left of Palmyra now and why the Afghan Buddhas were destroyed by the Taliban. Either way, Muhammed sent soldiers to tear down others' Gods rather than just missionaries to convert them.

"Well, if it's a sacred and inviolable text then presumably it all happened as described. Which means the Prophet married a 9-year-old girl "

This is what you said. I then made it clear that this is not in scripture like you seem to have implied.

I'll admit that I was wrong but I was speaking from memory and as I'm a Christian Scholar, not a Muslim one, I get confused between the Koran and the Haddith - I challenge you to pick between the Canonical books of the New Testament and the apocryphal ones. You didn't explain though, you just said "that's not in Scripture" rather than "that's only in the Haddith and I think she was older". Your response was miss-leading even if that wasn't the intention.

If Muhammed had sex with her at age 9 that would presumably have been because that was when she started puberty and therefore that was the appropriate time to perform the consummating act. That doesn't mean anything other than that was what was expected.

[AE Bravo]

it just means he was crucified which tells you nothing but that he was convicted of a crime and executed by the Romans.

Exactly. This is enough to assume that he went against the grain and did something that warranted a punishment reserved specifically for sedition.

It doesn't need to be more complex than that. Granted, it COULD be more complex but the canonical explanation is sufficient.

It’s not intended to make it more complex than it is, just an alternate view. Just “another guy starving up on the hill in front of the gates of Jerusalem” kind of view. Consider this, we know a lot about the time (and that’s an understatement) Jesus was supposed to have existed, so again there’s a lot to go by besides the Gospel. Considering we know how much a bushel of rice cost there's probably room to delve into Jesus using the context of his time.

This is not to say Pilate is not responsible, he is because he could have just said "no" and be done with it, but that doesn't mean Pilate thought Jesus was guilty - it just means he saw executing him as expedient vs Justice.

The fact of the matter is that there was a marriage between the Roman occupation and Judaism in the holy land. Pilate’s house was a wing/extension of a temple. Thus, a revolt against this organization is a revolt against Rome.

There's no rebellion at all though, the only act of violence Jesus commits is when he chases the money lenders out of the Temple

He ordered his followers to draw their swords when the Romans came to arrest them, but in defense of course. The point is he participated in some form of resistance, non-violent but standing up to authority nevertheless.

I don't believe the Prophet is separate from his Prophecy though - according to Muslim theology all proceeds as God wills, so if Muhammed was not meant to make war God would have prevented it.

Than we would have to criticize Old Testament god “hardening hearts” as well, but in the end all this means is that the people who denied the message chose war over god. At the same time, God doesn’t oppose his natural order.

it is not a "Religion of Peace" theologically because Muslims Peace it achieved via warfare and defeat of God's enemies.

That’s actually how Salafis insist on characterizing Islam. They believe that the golden age of Islam is its founding, when that age hasn’t really come through. For Salafis, there is no Kingdom of God but the one in the past. That concept has been robbed by centuries of executing Muslim thinkers for fear of disrupting its sacred state.

Again, this is not drawing a line between the message and Islamic history. Notice that I said that for me personally it is a religion of peace, inner peace to be exact. Muhammad did what he did but the Qur’an remains what it is and that is that it is a collection of pleas to humanity. So although by definition it means peace, it is just as much not a religion of peace than it is not a religion of war. It’s not a religion of anything but inner peace. You’ll find plenty of material in terms of justice, violence, meditation, society, etc. but there is only one ultimate truth in the book and it has nothing to do with anything besides Allah and the individual, which is the character of the creation/created/servant in the Qur'an.

In the end it transcends Muslims and it most certainly transcends its prophet as he himself admitted in the hadith.

Muhammad formed a movement on behalf of the weak, the poor, dispossessed, marginalized, and women just like jesus before him. The difference is that Muhammad’s death would have meant the death of his message right then and there, unlike Jesus’ situation. Instead of ascending to heaven like Jesus upon his death, Muhammad passed away like a normal person suffering for days. It goes without saying that he was the most flawed prophet since his life is the most richly documented,but definitely the most interesting. That the last prophet in Islam acted the way he did is poetic justice imo, and I don't see the point in painting him any harsher than in the way he set up for himself.

Hadiths conflict with the age of Aisha but honestly I couldn't care less if he married a teen or a tweener as long as it was unanimously acceptable in that society he lived in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exactly. This is enough to assume that he went against the grain and did something that warranted a punishment reserved specifically for sedition.

That he made powerful enemies and offended people, yes, that he engaged in Sedition - not necessarily.

[quote]It’s not intended to make it more complex than it is, just an alternate view. Just “another guy starving up on the hill in front of the gates of Jerusalem” kind of view. Consider this, we know a lot about the time (and that’s an understatement) Jesus was supposed to have existed, so again there’s a lot to go by besides the Gospel. Considering we know how much a bushel of rice cost there's probably room to delve into Jesus using the context of his time./quote]

We know a great deal about certain things but it's a very spotty picture. You are engaging in historical revisionism, which is not inherently bad but in this case the Gospels directly refute the idea that Jesus was seditious. The Zealots were seditious, they refused to pay Roman taxes whilst Jesus encouraged people to.

The fact of the matter is that there was a marriage between the Roman occupation and Judaism in the holy land. Pilate’s house was a wing/extension of a temple. Thus, a revolt against this organization is a revolt against Rome.

Incorrect - Pilate's own house as governor was in Caesarea - not Jerusalem. Pilate was presumably in Jerusalem for the Passover (you recall I said his wife had Jewish leanings). Yes, certain Jewish factions supported the temple - others didn't - but they weren't administratively yoked together as you suggest.

He ordered his followers to draw their swords when the Romans came to arrest them, but in defense of course. The point is he participated in some form of resistance, non-violent but standing up to authority nevertheless.

Ah, no, you are incorrect. Jesus ordered his followers to buy swords and they were only able to buy three because they were so poor. The bought swords to fulfil a prophecy and when they tried to use them against the Jewish authorities Jesus forbade them to and heal the man whose ear had been cut off. Jesus did not offer any resistance at all to his arrest beyond rebuking Judas for betraying him.

Than we would have to criticize Old Testament god “hardening hearts” as well, but in the end all this means is that the people who denied the message chose war over god. At the same time, God doesn’t oppose his natural order.

The traditional interpretation is that Pharoh and all the others God strikes down in the Old Testament are inherently evil but modern Christians usually explain away those parts as allegorical or doctored - or as a poetic turn of phrase in Pharoh's case.

Just because the Jewish scribes believed God ordained something doesn't automatically make it true, so the argument goes.

That’s actually how Salafis insist on characterizing Islam. They believe that the golden age of Islam is its founding, when that age hasn’t really come through. For Salafis, there is no Kingdom of God but the one in the past. That concept has been robbed by centuries of executing Muslim thinkers for fear of disrupting its sacred state.

I would say the Golden Age of Islam comes between the fall of Jerusalem and the Turkish Invasion of Anatolia - after the First Crusade the Latin West begins to recover culturally and over the following centuries they first pull level with Muslim cultures and then overtake them in terms of science and social institutions whilst Islamic culture begins a slow intellectual decline brought on by stagnation. The stagnation is cause by the same thing that did for Rome in the end - the Conquest machine stalls and wealth and new ideas stop flowing into the Islamic World and start flowing out.

Not that Islam produced nothing worthwhile after 1300 but the really astonishing advances in fields like mathematics, theology, medicine etc come before that.

Again, this is not drawing a line between the message and Islamic history. Notice that I said that for me personally it is a religion of peace, inner peace to be exact. Muhammad did what he did but the Qur’an remains what it is and that is that it is a collection of pleas to humanity. So although by definition it means peace, it is just as much not a religion of peace than it is not a religion of war. It’s not a religion of anything but inner peace. You’ll find plenty of material in terms of justice, violence, meditation, society, etc. but there is only one ultimate truth in the book and it has nothing to do with anything besides Allah and the individual, which is the character of the creation/created/servant in the Qur'an.

In the end it transcends Muslims and it most certainly transcends its prophet as he himself admitted in the hadith.

Well, that's very admirable as a principle but I would argue that doesn't make it a religion of peace because I believe such a religion should preach peace to the exclusion of violence and Islam, contrary to that, quite literally wrote the book on how to conduct Holy War for a monotheistic God. That doesn't make Islam or Muhammed "BAD" by Human standards, and it makes it far more practical than some Christian or Buddhist theologies but I don't believe you can argue for pacifism from within Islam because the Prophet made war in the name of God and that disqualifies it from being a "Religion of Peace" as th term is commonly understood.

Muhammad formed a movement on behalf of the weak, the poor, dispossessed, marginalized, and women just like jesus before him.

I would say that, in a practical sense, Muhammed was if anything more helpful to his followers than Jesus. Christianity offers the suffering solace in God and Christians will try to ease the pain of the suffering but God is definitely not going to stop your suffering.

Jesus's death in Christianity and his ascent into heaven before sentence is carried out in Islam are a pointed illustration of that, I would say. The Christian God not only let Jesus suffer, he inflicted suffering upon him unto death - the Muslim God spared Jesus from suffering.

The difference is that Muhammad’s death would have meant the death of his message right then and there, unlike Jesus’ situation. Instead of ascending to heaven like Jesus upon his death, Muhammad passed away like a normal person suffering for days. It goes without saying that he was the most flawed prophet since his life is the most richly documented,but definitely the most interesting. That the last prophet in Islam acted the way he did is poetic justice imo, and I don't see the point in painting him any harsher than in the way he set up for himself.

OK - I don't get this bit. Obviously Muhammed did die a mundane death and his religion and message survived. If you look at Jesus' mortal life it was an abject failure, his Cult only begins to grow under the combined leadership of Peter and Paul after his death.

Hadiths conflict with the age of Aisha but honestly I couldn't care less if he married a teen or a tweener as long as it was unanimously acceptable in that society he lived in.

Well, let us be honest - the earlier the Haddith the younger she is. I've seen upper estimates of 19 and I would say those are the result of later Muslim scholars being unwilling to accept the lower age of 9. I would also add that we have no idea what Aisha looked like at age 9, so it's very difficult to even try to make any sort of judgement.

[Noncommunist]

I would say the Golden Age of Islam comes between the fall of Jerusalem and the Turkish Invasion of Anatolia - after the First Crusade the Latin West begins to recover culturally and over the following centuries they first pull level with Muslim cultures and then overtake them in terms of science and social institutions whilst Islamic culture begins a slow intellectual decline brought on by stagnation. The stagnation is cause by the same thing that did for Rome in the end - the Conquest machine stalls and wealth and new ideas stop flowing into the Islamic World and start flowing out.

Not that Islam produced nothing worthwhile after 1300 but the really astonishing advances in fields like mathematics, theology, medicine etc come before that.

Seems that the Mongols were responsible for a lot of their decline given that they were able to conquer some of the great centers of Islamic intelligentsia.

[AE Bravo]

That he made powerful enemies and offended people, yes, that he engaged in Sedition - not necessarily.

What kind of logic is that? Crucifixion was a direct result of sedition, this is a historical fact. On paper and as far as we know, he engaged in sedition. Obviously the Gospel would stand against that entire idea.

You are engaging in historical revisionism

It's already there. I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. Nothing special at all but facts are facts.

Incorrect - Pilate's own house as governor was in Caesarea

Antonia fortress, west corner of the Temple Mount. The temple was swarming with Roman soldiers so it was an abomination not only because of its corruption but also for embracing the Roman occupation. Herodian elite were Hellenized Jews, considering "we have no king but Caesar!" Jesus clearly was against this marriage and rightfully so.

Messiah means descendant of King David, here to reestablish David’s kingdom on earth (hence twelve tribes/apostles), usher in the rule of god. This is treason plain and simple, and it’s why previous so-called messiahs were executed as well. Jesus was making huge claims for himself and this threatened the imperial prefecture.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Lestae means bandit, which was synonymous with "insurrectionist" for Rome.

Just because the Jewish scribes believed God ordained something doesn't automatically make it true, so the argument goes.

But the initial point is things go however god wills. Since you believe that the prophet and god's intentions can't be separated than the prophet is absolved of his actions. Or we could just go with his enemies are inherently evil because they chose war over god.

I would say the Golden Age of Islam

Harun Al Rashid's reign generally gets that title. It's a misleading idea. What's the golden age of Christianity?

that doesn't make it a religion of peace because I believe such a religion should preach peace to the exclusion of violence and Islam, contrary to that, quite literally wrote the book on how to conduct Holy War for a monotheistic God.

Last I checked all of them do, not just Islam. Qur'an references early struggle, doesn't ask you to emulate it since no Muslim should live through it again unless they are endangered in their own holy sites again.

I don't believe you can argue for pacifism from within Islam because the Prophet made war in the name of God

This is how the first Muslim ushered in the rule of god in a barbarian society. Throughout history there were Muslim societies built in a way that subverts that, so Islam is infinitely malleable and not definable in that sense just like every other scripture. Saying it's a religion of peace is equally as true as saying it's a religion of revolution for example.

If you look at Jesus' mortal life it was an abject failure, his Cult only begins to grow under the combined leadership of Peter and Paul after his death.

No love for James? I remember that Paul was responsible for the big departure from the original message, maybe for the better but still I don't see how you can credit Jesus when Paul basically reinvented his teachings based on the big claims he made for himself.

My point is that prophets like Jesus failed because they did not have the capability or were willing to step out of the pacifist circle of prophets to join the king circle. Muhammad learned from these mistakes and acted accordingly considering his society had spoken, wanted his rule en masse, and the majority was open for reform. He seized the initiative but sacrificed the purity that's attached to many prophets that were poorer or lower in their social hierarchies. Basically Muhammad started out rich, while Jesus was a (materially) powerless man from the backwoods of some village that wasn't even on the map.

Well, let us be honest - the earlier the Haddith the younger she is.

Ok. But what's the deal? There must be a point to this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What kind of logic is that? Crucifixion was a direct result of sedition, this is a historical fact. On paper and as far as we know, he engaged in sedition. Obviously the Gospel would stand against that entire idea.

It's already there. I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. Nothing special at all but facts are facts.

You are completely ignorant of the concept of false accusation?

He was accused of sedition, that doesn't make him guilty of it - it also doesn't mean Pilate believed it - just that he sentenced him.

Antonia fortress, west corner of the Temple Mount. The temple was swarming with Roman soldiers so it was an abomination not only because of its corruption but also for embracing the Roman occupation. Herodian elite were Hellenized Jews, considering "we have no king but Caesar!" Jesus clearly was against this marriage and rightfully so.

Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonia_Fortress

Not the site of the Praetorium, also not actually part of the Temple, just connected to it.

Messiah means descendant of King David, here to reestablish David’s kingdom on earth (hence twelve tribes/apostles), usher in the rule of god. This is treason plain and simple, and it’s why previous so-called messiahs were executed as well. Jesus was making huge claims for himself and this threatened the imperial prefecture.

"Messiah" means "annointed one" Jesus became a Messiah (note "A" and not "The") after John the Baptist "anointed him" in the river Jordan. Jesus claimed to be a "Messiah", i.e. a leader anointed by God but NOT an earthly King. A Pro-Roman, or even apathetic, religious leader for the Jews would potentially be attractive to Pilate, as opposed to the expected Messiah whome the Jews believes would lead a revolt.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Lestae means bandit, which was synonymous with "insurrectionist" for Rome.

A "bandit" is essentially someone who "disturbs the peace". The thing about that though is that you can apply it to any Gentile within the Imperium Romanum and Pilate's loaned Imperium (via Tiberius) allowed him to summarily execute anyone not a Roman Citizen for "breaking the peace".

But the initial point is things go however god wills. Since you believe that the prophet and god's intentions can't be separated than the prophet is absolved of his actions. Or we could just go with his enemies are inherently evil because they chose war over god.

Well - theologically speaking - opposition to God is the definition of evil. Of course, what God wills and what Man writes about God's will don't have to match. Judaism, Christianity and Islam can't all be right - two of them must be wrong and in opposition to God's will, or a poor reflection of it at best.

Harun Al Rashid's reign generally gets that title. It's a misleading idea. What's the golden age of Christianity?

His reign would fall within the accepted Western Definition of the "Islamic Golden Age".

As to a "Christian Golden Age" there is no such concept because Christianity isn't the defining cultural feature of "Christian" societies.

Last I checked all of them do, not just Islam. Qur'an references early struggle, doesn't ask you to emulate it since no Muslim should live through it again unless they are endangered in their own holy sites again.

Try to find references to "Holy War" in Christian theology before the Islamic invasions - I'm betting you won't find any until the Eastern Romans have to fight Muslims. In fact, Holy War is only really a concept in Western Latin Christianity following the Crusades.

This is how the first Muslim ushered in the rule of god in a barbarian society. Throughout history there were Muslim societies built in a way that subverts that, so Islam is infinitely malleable and not definable in that sense just like every other scripture. Saying it's a religion of peace is equally as true as saying it's a religion of revolution for example.

This is precisely why I have said that Christianity, as taught by Jesus in the Gospels, is a religion of peace. Modern Roman Catholicism is emphatically not a religion of peace, it has a whole theology devoted to the justification of war.

No love for James? I remember that Paul was responsible for the big departure from the original message, maybe for the better but still I don't see how you can credit Jesus when Paul basically reinvented his teachings based on the big claims he made for himself.

I am not a fan of Paul - particularly his views on woman and sex which have been picked up by the Roman Catholics especially. However, it remains true that Paul was instrumental in shaping the early Church whilst James was far more important during Christ's life than after.

My point is that prophets like Jesus failed because they did not have the capability or were willing to step out of the pacifist circle of prophets to join the king circle. Muhammad learned from these mistakes and acted accordingly considering his society had spoken, wanted his rule en masse, and the majority was open for reform. He seized the initiative but sacrificed the purity that's attached to many prophets that were poorer or lower in their social hierarchies. Basically Muhammad started out rich, while Jesus was a (materially) powerless man from the backwoods of some village that wasn't even on the map.

You see this as Muhammed's virtue, I see it as his mistake and that is what divides Christians and Muslims and defines many of the differences between us.

Ok. But what's the deal? There must be a point to this.

Well, partly the point was to reach agreement on the point. The reason I brought it up originally was to demonstrate that Muhammed is generally accepted to have done things in his private life that we today find distasteful.

Which is, I hasten to add, distinct from being morally wrong.

[Sarmatian]

Battle of the Books: Bible and Koran

Sounds like a new Michael Bay movie.

[rory_20_uk]

Which version of books are we using today? There are so many different ones all claiming they are the only true definitely not tampered with word of God I get confused.

[Myth]

I think they're both good bedtime stories and that they rehash some primordial archetypes that have ever been present in the human sbuconscious, mythology and culture. I am a theist but I highly doubt that books written by falliable human beings will tell me what/who God actaully is let alone what "He" wants from me.

Can't take kiddy diddlers, sodomites and greedy old men seriously when it comes to my soul.

[Idaho]

They are compendiums of older stories, mashed-up traditional stories draped like clothes over new actors, hidden polemics, and crowd pleasing nonsense.

I can't understand how anyone can take the new testament seriously as a historical source. The oldest book in it was written a hundred years after Jesus' supposed death.

As for the Koran - it doesn't have anything about the life of Mohammed. Most of that stuff was cooked up much later - probably over 200 years later.

[drone]

Sounds like a new Michael Bay movie.

I was thinking epic rap battle...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are compendiums of older stories, mashed-up traditional stories draped like clothes over new actors, hidden polemics, and crowd pleasing nonsense.

I can't understand how anyone can take the new testament seriously as a historical source. The oldest book in it was written a hundred years after Jesus' supposed death.

As for the Koran - it doesn't have anything about the life of Mohammed. Most of that stuff was cooked up much later - probably over 200 years later.

You know "Bible" means "collection of writings", right?

I understand that the Dawkensian view of religion is reassuring for atheists, but it's also populist rubbish.

[Gilrandir]

Jesus always knew that his movement was too powerful for Rome, and he was the founder of a new world order.

Oh, come on!!! It is like claiming that when Jobs started working on his inventions he knew they would make a movie about him.

[Husar]

Oh, come on!!! It is like claiming that when Jobs started working on his inventions he knew they would make a movie about him.

This may be hard to believe for Apple fans, but Jobs was also not the son of God, so...

[Gilrandir]

This may be hard to believe for Apple fans, but Jobs was also not the son of God, so...

My world is falling apart.

[Idaho]

You know "Bible" means "collection of writings", right?

I understand that the Dawkensian view of religion is reassuring for atheists, but it's also populist rubbish.

Stories, not writings.

I am not sure what your second sentence means or who it is directed at, so I won't comment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Stories, not writings.

I am not sure what your second sentence means or who it is directed at, so I won't comment.

No, not stories. The literal translation is "Books" but it means books in the Pre-modern sense.

The Bible is not merely a collection of folk-stories, it contains books of poetry, prophecy, laws, actual narrative history/chronicles, letters, biography, and even erotica.

Now, whether you believe any of it is accurate is up to you but I do not think there are many modern historians or archaeologists today who think that Exodus and the books after are not at least based historical occurrences.

The "Dawkensian" view is just to say "well, the Jews were never in Egypt, there never was a King David and Jesus never existed." That seems to be the line you're taking here.

The idea doesn't really stand up when you consider that the Iliad records the siege of Troy and modern historians now think Homer was only out in his dating by a few decades and in fact the Mycenaean Greeks did besiege and sack Troy.

The preservation of accurate details after 400 years though the pre-Classical "Dark Ages" really argues against the idea that Books like the Bible, or the Koran, or the Haddith are simply fabrications - that's just lazy thinking.

[AE Bravo]

Not the site of the Praetorium, also not actually part of the Temple, just connected to it.

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

"Messiah", i.e. a leader anointed by God but NOT an earthly King. A Pro-Roman, or even apathetic, religious leader for the Jews would potentially be attractive to Pilate, as opposed to the expected Messiah whome the Jews believes would lead a revolt.

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.

A "bandit" is essentially someone who "disturbs the peace".

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

A "bandit" is essentially someone who "disturbs the peace".

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

You see this as Muhammed's virtue, I see it as his mistake and that is what divides Christians and Muslims and defines many of the differences between us.

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.

Well, partly the point was to reach agreement on the point. The reason I brought it up originally was to demonstrate that Muhammed is generally accepted to have done things in his private life that we today find distasteful.

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.

[Idaho]

No, not stories. The literal translation is "Books" but it means books in the Pre-modern sense.

The Bible is not merely a collection of folk-stories, it contains books of poetry, prophecy, laws, actual narrative history/chronicles, letters, biography, and even erotica.

Now, whether you believe any of it is accurate is up to you but I do not think there are many modern historians or archaeologists today who think that Exodus and the books after are not at least based historical occurrences.

The "Dawkensian" view is just to say "well, the Jews were never in Egypt, there never was a King David and Jesus never existed." That seems to be the line you're taking here.

The idea doesn't really stand up when you consider that the Iliad records the siege of Troy and modern historians now think Homer was only out in his dating by a few decades and in fact the Mycenaean Greeks did besiege and sack Troy.

The preservation of accurate details after 400 years though the pre-Classical "Dark Ages" really argues against the idea that Books like the Bible, or the Koran, or the Haddith are simply fabrications - that's just lazy thinking.

Homer was a story teller. His motivation for embellishing Greek history was drama and entertainment. Consequently we can expect that some of the more dramatic and fantastical elements are made up, but the basic underpinnings - war, long siege - were probably true.

The various writers, editors, translators, compilers, re-editors, etc that contributed to the modern bible had different motivations - religious zeal, political advantage over rivals, factional dispute, etc. They were supplanting themselves as the new chosen people. Consequently we can expect distortions on a different scale.

And much as you, Hollywood and Benjamin Netanyahu might like to believe, the pyramids were not built by Jewish slaves. If Jews were enslaved anywhere, it was probably in Persia - probably where they adopted, then adapted Zoroastranism.

[AE Bravo]

As for the Koran - it doesn't have anything about the life of Mohammed. Most of that stuff was cooked up much later - probably over 200 years later.

He's referenced briefly throughout the book and there's one chapter about him. It's called "Muhammad."

Actually just remembered there's a whole lot about his life in fragments that are enough to make a biography of him, the Muhammad of faith I mean.