Battle of the Books: Bible and Koran discussion

[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.