 |
| |
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
You understand the concept of an ANALOGY?
|
Yeah, but it was a pretty poor one.
quote:
The point is, only one source mentions it, no other source does. That doesn't bode well for its veracity.
|
There are other facts we know only of one source...
And why be suprised that Muslims didn't want to repeat stories that weren't showing what they wanted to see?
quote:
Sometimes history is written in the interests of the elite, so inconvenient details are ignored are written over. It's up to contemporary historians to dig **** up and to see exactly what went down.
|
Exactly that's why You can not dismiss Ibn Ishaaq because He was the only one to have written about it.
Also, it I recall, it's the oldest chronicle...
And yet You have to find some proof that the story is not true.
quote:
Of course we do. The very source that cites the attack on Medinan Jews, for instance. Countless others
|
Name a few with dates of creation. There's Sirat Muhammad, but I think it's a bit older.
And the very source that tells us about the attacks You dismiss 
quote:
Have you rread the bible? Jesus had several earthly brothers created by the union of Mary and Joseph. That's just established fact which every single denomination agrees with.
|
perhaps some tiny protestant sect.
Nestorian, Monophysite, orthodox and catholic churches surely do not agree with this, and I doubt mainline protestant churches do.
As I've mentioned, "brother" does not necessarily mean a sibling.
Anyway, quote a Bible if You like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
St. Peter is part of the Bible? |
For god damned sure he is. The New testament is composed of "The Gosipol according to..." name the saint. In which each tells his testamony of what Jesus said and what he believes that means for Christians.
quote:
When you have a history of a certain action under the name of the religion, it becomes the basic teaching of religion. And, of course, there is a debate on the actual existance of Jesus. Nevertheless, Paul started Christianity. |
There is no debate about the existance of a historical Jesus. Everyone ackwongledges there was aperson anmed Jesus and Roman, Jesish, Christian, and other sources have all agreed the man existed and that his basically said what the bible said he said. That's one of the strong points of the Christian faith. At least their mesiah was a peaceful person and he historically was quoted as calling for peace on Earth. That is very different from Mohammed's message.
quote:
As Heresson said, Sharia and Hadith is far different than from the Koran. It is more like the Jewish Talmud, where rabbis wrote to each other and came up with a distillation on the law. The Koran is very sparce on detailed punishments for crimes. |
That is simply not true. The Sharia expands upon what Mohammed says in the Koran but there are many, many very specific laws which mohammed spells out in the Koran. How much is a woman's word worth compared to a man? How much should a girl child recieve from her parent's compared to a brother? How should a wife be treated if she doesn't scrape and beg to her husband's every wish? How should an apostate be punished (anwser: Stoned to death), how should a couple which is not married but who has sex be punished (anwser: buried to the knees so they cannot move then stoned to death), how should nonbelievers be treated (anwser: They should be killed). I could go on and on. The Koran spells out huge numbers of thing and if a muslim believes the Koran is thw world of god, as Mohammed say it is, then they must accept all of these barbaric things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
In that-time Palestine (also Egypt and other places) people were referring to themselves as "brothers" when they were cousins or even friends.
|
Please substantiate that in the context of the Bible, this is the case. Why would Mary be hanging out with Jesus' cousins and friends?
Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mothers and brothers came to see him. Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had sisters but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55-56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother prayed for Him. Later in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings. There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are not the actual children of Mary and Joseph.
Cite for me any Biblical passage that asserts Mary remained a virgin. It's a preposterous notion that would be the case in those days. Why wouldn't Joseph and his wife consummate their marriage?
Of course, this is all in spite of the fact that the whole virgin birth myth was cooked up by people who were (erroneously) trying to fulfill OT prophecy retroactively.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Even today, in Poland, You call cousins brothers with "stryjeczni" addition, but I've heard it without it as well. |
Irrelevant. I asked you to substantiate the claim that this is the most logical context for the Biblical passages. I could care less what happens in Polish.
quote:
There's no proof that these were Mary's actual children.
Just possibility. |
No, there is no proof they aren't her children, and given the context of the passages, the most logical conclusion is they are her children. There is zero reason to believe, based on the Bible, that Mary remained a virgin for life. Give me one passage that alludes to that. Just one.
Otherwise, the contortions you have to go through to explain away his siblings are ludicrous. And unneccesary.
I'll give you the most explicit:
Matthew 13:55-56, in which the neighbors wonder where Jesus gets off with all this preaching: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"
It makes little sense to prefer a meaning of "cousins" or "friends" in this context, since the entire reason the people are saying it is that he is being "uppity" compared to the rest of his immediate family.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
For god damned sure he is. The New testament is composed of "The Gosipol according to..." name the saint. In which each tells his testamony of what Jesus said and what he believes that means for Christians. |
The only "Gospel of Peter" is non-canonical. There is no canonical Gospel of Peter.
quote:
There is no debate about the existance of a historical Jesus. |
Um... actually there is.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence
quote:
A large number of commentators and writers lived in the Jewish and Roman world in the first and second centuries. Most of the writings of the ones from the first century have been lost; however, their surviving works would collectively fill hundreds of volumes of text. The earliest large body of evidence comes from Tacitus. Of these writers only six are claimed to have written anything at all about Jesus—Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, Philo, Lucian, and Tacitus. Supporters of Jesus' historicity claim that most of the writers showed no interest in events in the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, so that it is unsurprising that little is written about a local religious leader. However, those who oppose this claim argue that many of the commentators commented on other Middle Eastern events, and many, especially the geographers, travelled to the region and that reports of miracles might have been expected to arouse more interest.
Certain supposedly lesser figures are mentioned more in surviving texts than Jesus. For example, Josephus frequently mentions John the Baptist, but mentions Jesus only twice, once only by name and the second in a passage whose authenticity is disputed. Jewish records make occasional mention of a person or persons called Yeshu but this figure is placed at different times and has a very different character to Jesus. The name Yeshu (which came to us through the Greek as Jesus, and more directly as Joshua) was a fairly common name in first century Jewish territories. Roman records, and those of Josephus, refer to a series of troublemakers, including many who claimed to be Messiah. However, Jesus is not mentioned explicitly amongst them, although others such as Simon bar Kokhba, Theudas, Menahem ben Judah, and an Egyptian who had a large following of 30,000, are mentioned.
Many scholars consider it odd that a man of such significance as Jesus should be missing from historic texts and records, since lesser figures are, unless, that is, Jesus didn't exist, or was insignificant. If Jesus had been resurrected, and ascended into heaven, they consider that someone amongst the commentators and record keepers would have thought it worthy of writing down. Christians proclaim that this evidence is precisely what became the New Testament, wheras others dispute this, stating that one would expect at least a handful of non-Christian witnesses. |
---
quote:
That is simply not true. |
No, it is true. The Koran has very few laws within it. No more than the Bible, especially the Old Testament, has. Most of the laws come from Sharia or Hadith. Have you ever heard of an Islamic state saying they have law from the Koran, but NOT from Sharia?
quote:
how should nonbelievers be treated (anwser: They should be killed). |
And if that was the case, then why were unbelievers accepted into the Islamic state and only forced to pay a special tax? After all, Hindus, which aren't even people of the Book, where allowed to live and prosper under the Mughal rulars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Yeah, but it was a pretty poor one. |
Not my fault if you're too dense to get the point.
quote:
There are other facts we know only of one source... |
And in which situations do every other contemporary source contradict it?
quote:
And why be suprised that Muslims didn't want to repeat stories that weren't showing what they wanted to see? |
It's seen as the primary biography by the powers that be. Obviously, they didn't mind repeating it. However no other contemporary source mentioned that account.
quote:
Exactly that's why You can not dismiss Ibn Ishaaq because He was the only one to have written about it.
Also, it I recall, it's the oldest chronicle... |
No, the oldest Chronicle is the Qur'an. Ishaq ostensibly wrote his Chronicle a century later.
quote:
And yet You have to find some proof that the story is not true. |
That every other contemporary source contradicts this story...
quote:
Name a few with dates of creation. There's Sirat Muhammad, but I think it's a bit older.
And the very source that tells us about the attacks You dismiss |
The Qur'an is a century older than Ishaq and doesn't mention this event. Umar was a couple decades after Ishaq (except we only have a secondary source for Ishaq, so Umar may be a couple centuries older than Ishaq), which doesn't mention the event. Then there were Waqidi in the next century and Tibari a little afterwards, again neither mentioning the event.
Did it happen? Maybe, maybe not. The most rational guess is that it didn't happen. Of course, if you have an axe to grind with Islam and want to paint the religion as intrinsically intolerant, you might have an ideological reason to say that it did happen.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-03-2005 02:07
|