Battle of the Books: Bible and Koran discussion

[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.

[drone]

Sounds like a new Michael Bay movie.

I was thinking epic rap battle...