[lpkmckenna]

Well, this should be interesting: New Iranian film "Jesus, the Spirit of God"

I doubt that Islam's view of Jesus would help paint a clearer picture of the historical Jesus (my current interest), but I'd like to see this movie anyway. The last few I've seen (Gibson's, Dafoe's, Jesus of Montreal, and Gospel of John) were all fascinating to watch.

Islam's view of Jesus as a "mere prophet" is interesting: was Mohammed aware that Jesus was worshipped as God in the Roman world?

Humorously, Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross, which is one of the few historical details that are almost certainly true.

[Arty50]

Somewhat related, but not entirely:

There's a really interesting article in the Weekend Edition of the WSJ called "the Lost Archive." It talks about a collection of photographs of very early versions of the Quran. Just before WWII, there was some incredible work being done in Germany dealing with ancient religious texts. A lot of the work dealt with tracking the revisions of the various texts, which led to discussions about the origins of the source material and also delved into how the the texts had been translated over the years. At first, the work centered around the Christian Bible and laid the foundation for our modern understanding and interpretation of the works found withing. Later, people started looking at the Quran and applying the same methodology to hunt out the source material and also see how it's been translated over the years.

The one big issue with the Quran is that muslims consider it to be the verbatim transcript of God's word. Technically, translations aren't even allowed. So to say that it may have evolved or has been edited over the years a massive heresy. But these pictures supposedly show that to be the case. Anyway, this archive was considered to be lost in the war and it just turned up a few years ago. And it wasn't until recently that word got out that a small group of scholars had happened upon it. The interesting thing is that they're creating a database of all the rolls of film so that it's more easily accessible. They also have state funding for an 18 year study of the archive. Needless to say, it should be interesting to see what comes of this...

The amount of scholarship that has been done on the Bible is incredible and has been a wonderful thing. The one big shame in the case of the Bible is that more people haven't been exposed to it.

[BadKosh]

But, Didn't Mohammad begin Islam AFTER Jesus had died, Or doesn't it matter in the Muslim world?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

But, Didn't Mohammad begin Islam AFTER Jesus had died, Or doesn't it matter in the Muslim world?

They think he didn't die on the cross, and never died, but was raised to heaven while alive, like Elijah and Mohammed.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

They think he didn't die on the cross, and never died, but was raised to heaven while alive, like Elijah and Mohammed.

Well, at least half of that is consistent with Christian doctrine.

[OAW]

The thing you have to remember about Islam is that Muslims don't consider it to have "begun" with Muhammad. They consider him to be the last and greatest of its Prophets. And therein lies the fundamental disconnect between Muslims and Westerners. In the West we tend to see Judaism as starting with Moses, Christianity as starting with Jesus, and Islam as starting with Muhammad. And we look at these as separate and distinct religions. Whereas in the Islamic word all of these individuals are considered to be Prophets of a single religion called Islam.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Humorously, Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross, which is one of the few historical details that are almost certainly true.

There's the possibility that Jesus was impaled on a spear or pike. Some scholars argue that crucifixions didn't start happening until several years after Jesus. Still, in all likelihood, he was probably crucified as it's pretty vague when the Romans actually started crucifying people.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The thing you have to remember about Islam is that Muslims don't consider it to have "begun" with Muhammad. They consider him to be the last and greatest of its Prophets. And therein lies the fundamental disconnect between Muslims and Westerners. In the West we tend to see Judaism as starting with Moses, Christianity as starting with Jesus, and Islam as starting with Muhammad. And we look at these as separate and distinct religions. Whereas in the Islamic word all of these individuals are considered to be Prophets of a single religion called Islam.

OAW

Doesn't Islam see Judaism and Christianity in basically the same way Christians see Judaism, i.e., as the incomplete precursor of their own religion?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Doesn't Islam see Judaism and Christianity in basically the same way Christians see Judaism, i.e., as the incomplete precursor of their own religion?

In a manner of speaking ... yes.

OAW

[Arty50]

I think the Mormons should send a bunch of kids in white shirts to Muslim houses all over the world and have them start telling people that Joseph Smith was actually the last prophet.

[pooka]

So, I guess the biggest question is...

Who's right? Jehovah's witnesses?

[LegendaryPinkOx]

Neat! I never bothered to see Gibson's version since it was basically just retelling the story that, growing up in a Catholic household, has been rammed down my throat. But I'm very curious to see the Islamic version, and urge many Christians to do the same. Hopefully it can help dispell some of the stigma attached to Iranians and their religion that has plauged our western perspective as of late.

Nader Talebzadeh

[Chongo]

He is Yeshua ben Miriam to Islam and will return with the Mahdi to battle the Dajjal
Mahdi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dajjal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sherman Homan]

The "mahdi" title is the prefix of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's name. It is part of his apocalyptic belief that he is the final ruler before the last Mahdi, the 12th Imam, arises from the well....
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/060523a.aspx

[peeb]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Humorously, Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross, which is one of the few historical details that are almost certainly true.

What makes you think this? I am profoundly skeptical about this statement.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What makes you think this? I am profoundly skeptical about this statement.

Which part are you profoundly skeptical about?

That it's humorous?
That Islam denies Jesus' death on the cross?
That Jesus died on a cross? or...
That it's one of the few historical details that are almost certainly true?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Which part are you profoundly skeptical about?

That it's humorous?
That Islam denies Jesus' death on the cross?
That Jesus died on a cross? or...
That it's one of the few historical details that are almost certainly true?

I was wondering the same thing, because lpk's statement is pretty right on, as far as I can tell.

[peeb]

Humorous is fine, Islam certainly denies Jesus's resurection, and I think explains the story of post-death sightings by the idea that he did not die, but I don't think there is any compelling historical evidence to say very much about Jesus. I'd challenge the idea that there is very much historical evidence for the life or death of Christ at all.

[pooka]

So what about Muhammad?

[peeb]

What about him?

[PaperNotes]

And according to Islamists, Neil Armstrong converted to Islam on the moon and there are 5 women to every men on the planet and therefore Allah is right that we should marry all those single women.

Not wanting to mention they think God writes badly written books but.....they do. The real Robin Hood and King Arthur were Muslim too apparently.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There's the possibility that Jesus was impaled on a spear or pike. Some scholars argue that crucifixions didn't start happening until several years after Jesus. Still, in all likelihood, he was probably crucified as it's pretty vague when the Romans actually started crucifying people.

Well, it is KNOWN that the Romans were crucifying at least as early as 120 BC, since that's the way they dealt with the gladiator rebellion under Spartacus, by crucifying a rebel every mile along the road to Rome.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by pooka 

So what about Muhammad?

Originally Posted by peeb 

What about him?

Originally Posted by peeb 

Humorous is fine, Islam certainly denies Jesus's resurection, and I think explains the story of post-death sightings by the idea that he did not die, but I don't think there is any compelling historical evidence to say very much about Jesus. I'd challenge the idea that there is very much historical evidence for the life or death of Christ at all.

He wants to know does that also apply to Muhammad ( or is it Mohamed, or..?) Is there evidence for this life or death?
Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peeb]

I wouldn't want to venture an opinion on the historicity of Mohamed. I simply said that I think there very little, if any, historical evidence for Jesus as we tend to think of him.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And according to Islamists, Neil Armstrong converted to Islam on the moon and there are 5 women to every men on the planet and therefore Allah is right that we should marry all those single women.

You're very confused. "Islamist" is not synonymous with "Muslim."

[Doofy]

What we have to understand is that islam is simply a copy of Christianity without the good stuff. Hence denying the fact that Jesus died on a cross - i.e. denying the very purpose He was sent for.

Which, from a Christian point of view, makes it a very likely candidate for being inspired by the bad guy.

Mohammed shagged kids, you know.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You're very confused. "Islamist" is not synonymous with "Muslim."

I think he was trying to be funny.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

Somewhat related, but not entirely:

There's a really interesting article in the Weekend Edition of the WSJ called "the Lost Archive." It talks about a collection of photographs of very early versions of the Quran. Just before WWII, there was some incredible work being done in Germany dealing with ancient religious texts. A lot of the work dealt with tracking the revisions of the various texts, which led to discussions about the origins of the source material and also delved into how the the texts had been translated over the years. At first, the work centered around the Christian Bible and laid the foundation for our modern understanding and interpretation of the works found withing. Later, people started looking at the Quran and applying the same methodology to hunt out the source material and also see how it's been translated over the years.

The one big issue with the Quran is that muslims consider it to be the verbatim transcript of God's word. Technically, translations aren't even allowed. So to say that it may have evolved or has been edited over the years a massive heresy. But these pictures supposedly show that to be the case. Anyway, this archive was considered to be lost in the war and it just turned up a few years ago. And it wasn't until recently that word got out that a small group of scholars had happened upon it. The interesting thing is that they're creating a database of all the rolls of film so that it's more easily accessible. They also have state funding for an 18 year study of the archive. Needless to say, it should be interesting to see what comes of this...

The amount of scholarship that has been done on the Bible is incredible and has been a wonderful thing. The one big shame in the case of the Bible is that more people haven't been exposed to it.

I didn't read the WSJ article but Asia Times has one as well:

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

There's going to be a big stink when they find out the "virgins" were mistranslated and should have been "raisins"...

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which, from a Christian point of view, makes it a very likely candidate for being inspired by the bad guy.

Does that make Unitarians a devil-inspired religion also?

[peeb]

For a lot of fundamentalists all ideas aside from their own are inspired by the devil.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Does that make Unitarians a devil-inspired religion also?

Yup.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

Somewhat related, but not entirely:

There's a really interesting article in the Weekend Edition of the WSJ called "the Lost Archive." It talks about a collection of photographs of very early versions of the Quran. Just before WWII, there was some incredible work being done in Germany dealing with ancient religious texts. A lot of the work dealt with tracking the revisions of the various texts, which led to discussions about the origins of the source material and also delved into how the the texts had been translated over the years. At first, the work centered around the Christian Bible and laid the foundation for our modern understanding and interpretation of the works found withing. Later, people started looking at the Quran and applying the same methodology to hunt out the source material and also see how it's been translated over the years.

The one big issue with the Quran is that muslims consider it to be the verbatim transcript of God's word. Technically, translations aren't even allowed. So to say that it may have evolved or has been edited over the years a massive heresy. But these pictures supposedly show that to be the case. Anyway, this archive was considered to be lost in the war and it just turned up a few years ago. And it wasn't until recently that word got out that a small group of scholars had happened upon it. The interesting thing is that they're creating a database of all the rolls of film so that it's more easily accessible. They also have state funding for an 18 year study of the archive. Needless to say, it should be interesting to see what comes of this...

The amount of scholarship that has been done on the Bible is incredible and has been a wonderful thing. The one big shame in the case of the Bible is that more people haven't been exposed to it.

There are also comparisons between the Dead Sea Scrolls and modern Torah

[peeb]

So, are we going to see any evidence for the existence of Jesus?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So, are we going to see any evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Lacking Google on that there computer, are we?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So, are we going to see any evidence for the existence of Jesus?

If you mean is there a birth certificate, I don't believe there is one for Mohamed either.

[peeb]

What has Mohamed got to do with it?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Humorous is fine, Islam certainly denies Jesus's resurection, and I think explains the story of post-death sightings by the idea that he did not die, but I don't think there is any compelling historical evidence to say very much about Jesus. I'd challenge the idea that there is very much historical evidence for the life or death of Christ at all.

The Bible is the primary source of evidence about Jesus, but obviously it's not compelling in all its details unless you're a literalist religious person who believes that it is the word of God. To the rest of us though, it's pretty good evidence that a preacher named Jesus/Yeshua was executed by the Romans. Though many of the details are highly doubtful, that basic fact about his life, to which lpk was referring, is not in doubt by most serious neutral (including non-religious) historians.

[peeb]

Well, I agree with the thrust of what you are saying Russell, but I have not seen any compelling evidence even for the existence of a preacher called Jesus being executed by the Romans.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, I agree with the thrust of what you are saying Russell, but I have not seen any compelling evidence even for the existence of a preacher called Jesus being executed by the Romans.

Try Tacitus.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So, are we going to see any evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Opps, sorry about that.

The only evidence we have is textual: New Testament references and secular historians like Josephus and Tacitus. No physical evidence of Jesus exists, but of course we don't have physical evidence of most historical figures. A crucified criminal wouldn't leave a corpse anyways, since the body was left to rot away to nothing, picked at by dogs and birds.

The best Biblical evidence is "Q" (common text between Matthew and Luke, who otherwise were teaching opposing doctrines), the "gospel" of Thomas, and the epistles 1 John, 1 Peter, James, and Jude (probably also written by Thomas), and the non-fantastical stuff in Mark. All together, that material presents a reasonably consistent picture of an itinerant preacher of simplicity, poverty, forgiveness, and outreach to untouchables. There are no references to "salvation by faith" or physical appearances of Jesus. That's all Pauline nonsense.

Because that textual "picture" is very consistent, it's simplest to conclude that it was taught by a single individual in a short time frame.

This message would have been controversial. If he had preached this stuff in the Temple and/or harassed the money-changers there, he would have attracted the attention of the Roman authorities, especially if he did this during Passover. Pilate normally resided in Ceasarea, but moved with his Legions to Jerusalem for the Passover to keep revolutionary "Messiah-activity" under control. Jesus would have stood out as a trouble-maker and executed as a warning to others. If Jesus also mocked the Herodians and Sadducees, they'd gladly have arrested and turned him over, since both groups were Roman brown-nosers.

The historicity of Jesus is at least as good as someone like Socrates. Like Paul or Matthew, Plato made up stuff and shoved it in Socrates' mouth, but a critical scholar can easily pick the facts out of the fictions.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well, at least half of that is consistent with Christian doctrine.

Well, that's not surprising, the three Abrahamic faiths share a huge amount of scripture and history - and of course the same characters.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Try Tacitus.

Or Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Lucian

[peeb]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Opps, sorry about that.

The only evidence we have is textual: New Testament references and secular historians like Josephus and Tacitus.

Right. But Tacitus is writing, what, 100 years after Jesus' supposed death? The myths of his death and who he was supposed to be would have been well known at the time he was writing - it's totally unclear where he gets this idea from. As to the NT, that suffers a lot of the same issues. Yes, it establishes that there was a Jewish sect built around some guy, but offers no real evidence that he existed. It's a Robin Hood scenario.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No physical evidence Jesus exists, but of course we don't have physical evidence of most historical figures. A crucified criminal wouldn't leave a corpse anyways, since the body was left to rot away to nothing, picked at by dogs and birds.

My point exactly. Except that it is somewhat worse in the case of Jesus than most historical figures. I'm not saying that it is unreasonable that there is little, if any evidence for his existence, just that there is little, if any evidence for his existence.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The best Biblical evidence is "Q" (common text between Matthew and Luke, who otherwise were teaching opposing doctrines), the "gospel" of Thomas, and the epistles 1 John, 1 Peter, James, and Jude (probably also written by Thomas), and the non-fantastical stuff in Mark. All together, that material presents a reasonably consistent picture of an itinerant preacher of simplicity, poverty, forgiveness, and outreach to untouchables. There are no references to "salvation by faith" or physical appearances of Jesus. That's all Pauline nonsense.

Because that textual "picture" is very consistent, it's simplest to conclude that it was taught by a single individual in a short time frame.

This message would have been controversial. If he had preached this stuff in the Temple and/or harassed the money-changers there, he would have attracted the attention of the Roman authorities, especially if he did this during Passover. Pilate normally resided in Ceasarea, but moved with his Legions to Jerusalem for the Passover to keep revolutionary "Messiah-activity" under control. Jesus would have stood out as a trouble-maker and executed as a warning to others. If Jesus also mocked the Herodians and Sadducees, they'd gladly have arrested and turned him over, since both groups were Roman brown-nosers.

The historicity of Jesus is at least as good as someone like Socrates. Like Paul or Matthew, Plato made up stuff and shoved it in Socrates' mouth, but a critical scholar can easily pick the facts out of the fictions.

A lot of what you are writing there is supposition - it may well be a plausible guess, but that's not the same thing as having evidence to demonstrate it. I agree that, on balance, it might be as likely as not that there was an itinerant preacher called Jesus, what I am saying is that there is no solid evidence that there was.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by peeb 

A lot of what you are writing there is supposition - it may well be a plausible guess, but that's not the same thing as having evidence to demonstrate it. I agree that, on balance, it might be as likely as not that there was an itinerant preacher called Jesus, what I am saying is that there is no solid evidence that there was.

What would constitute "solid evidence" then? The visual eyewitness of a neutral observer who then wrote it down? The only witnesses to Jesus' execution would have been Pilate and the Roman soldiers, who probably couldn't write.

[BRussell]

I don't believe lpk claimed there was "solid evidence," he claimed that Jesus' execution was the one fact about Jesus' life that we can say is almost certainly true.

BTW, I don't think the extra-biblical sources like Josephus add anything at all to what we get from the Bible. They all go back to the Biblical sources. The Bible is the primary source of evidence about Jesus. I think it's interesting that the religious posters here (e.g., Doofy) are citing non-biblical sources rather than the Bible itself...

[peeb]

IPK - My point exactly. There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus.
My point is simply that there is nothing 'humorous' about doubting this.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What would constitute "solid evidence" then? The visual eyewitness of a neutral observer who then wrote it down? The only witnesses to Jesus' execution would have been Pilate and the Roman soldiers, who probably couldn't write.

someone has it their sig
for believers, no evidence is needed.
for unbelievers, no amount of evidence is sufficient. (or something like that)

[peeb]

Well, that's very trite, but the problem is that there is no evidence to speak of. I mean, I'm fine with a statement of faith, but bandying around the idea that it is funny to even doubt the life and death of Christ is just wrong.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by peeb 

IPK - My point exactly. There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Are you saying "no evidence" = "no physical evidence" ?? That's a bizarre standard. By the same standard, there's no evidence Socrates or Shakespeare existed.

If you took 6 defendants into separate rooms, compared their stories, and sorted out the contradictions, similarities, and motivations, you'd have a reasonably clear picture of the event. Same thing here.

My point is simply that there is nothing 'humorous' about doubting this.

Sure there is. Believing in the virgin birth while not believing in the execution is looking at the evidence upside-down. That seems pretty funny.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

someone has it their sig
for believers, no evidence is needed.
for unbelievers, no amount of evidence is sufficient. (or something like that)

Ok, but not really relevant here. I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty confident that Jesus was executed as a Jewish trouble-maker. It makes a lot more sense than believing that the Jesus story was entirely made-up, or a collaboration of Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, and India sources (the "Jesus myth" theory), or that Jesus is a Platonic angel (the Gnosticism theory).

If it was entirely made up, then who wrote those idiosyncratic parables, and then didn't take credit for it?

If it's a pagan synthesis, how did strict monotheists take to it so easily?

If it's a Gnostic in origin, how are the NT sources older than the Gnostic sources?