Islam vs. Christianity

[liamconnor]

We will compare two miraculous claims from both religions:

The claim that Mohammed ascended to God to secure a prescribed number of prayers required per day.

The claim that Jesus was resurrected from the grave.

Are the historical credentials equal? By historical credentials I mean (among other things): the gap between the alleged event and the first written reference to that event; implied eyewitness testimony; dissimilarity (is the claimed event congenial or at least congruent with the religious beliefs of those eyewitnesses, or does it force a new perspective upon those claiming to witness it)?

[marco]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

Noone knows what Jesus did.

Scholars who accept that Jesus existed say the only thing certain is that Jesus was crucified.

It isn't so certain in Islam. Sura 4 states: "They [the Jews] slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them...they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain, but Allah took him up unto Himself."

Tacitus of course says that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty and he had access to official Roman records, while Muhammad didn't. But then Muhammad had access to God.

[marco]

Gerd Lüdemann says:

"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

Unfortunately I am not in debate with Gerd Lüdemann whose views seem to have annoyed his Protestant colleagues in Germany. As I said, a parable teaches. If we are discussing the existence of Christ and his day-job then we have strayed too far from the OP.

[alwayson]

If we are discussing the existence of Christ

Gerd Lüdemann is not a mythicist.

[Mithrae]

Gerd Lüdemann says:

"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

On the contrary, on at least two occasions Paul attributes specific teachings to Jesus: The ritual and doctrine associated with the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11) and a noteworthy divergence from traditional Jewish custom with regards to divorce (1 Cor. 7, cf. Mark 10).

Of course a persistent theme in many of Paul's letters is his struggle to be recognized as the apostle he claimed to be. As someone who was not a follower of Jesus in life, and had potentially never even seen or heard him, focusing on the teachings of Jesus could only ever encourage his audience (at best) to ask who he'd heard that stuff from. So while Paul clearly and unequivocally indicates Jesus' humanity on numerous occasions (eg. Romans 1:3, 9:3, 1 Corinthians 2:2, 9:5, Galatians 1:19, 4:4, Philippians 2:7), it is not at all surprising that the ministry of an earthly Jesus is not the focal point of his surviving epistles.

[marco]

If we are discussing the existence of Christ

Gerd Lüdemann is not a mythicist.

Then pass on my apologies.
Perhaps we can ascertain what exactly are his thoughts on the topic of Islam vs. Christianity.

[alwayson]

On the contrary, on at least two occasions Paul attributes specific teachings to Jesus: The ritual and doctrine associated with the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11)

Jesus gives teachings in dreams/visions, not real life.

Paul specifically says the Last Supper was a dream/vision he had.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

Data to be interpreted over this miracle - yes. Facts? We don't know.

Perhaps there is a semantic disagreement.

I consider it a fact that if you picked up a bible you would find in it 1 Cor. 15.

I consider it a fact that this letter was written sometime in the 1st c.

I consider it a fact that prior to 33 AD, no one believed a Nazarene named Jesus had been raised from the grave, and after, some did.

Are those not facts?

I suppose they are facts about the data, but not about the historicity of the data.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

Your final statement is simply wrong. What you mean is that of the two miracles you've chosen, one has more apparent witnesses:

Yes, I thought the OP was about two miracles. I was hoping I could use "Islam" as a shorthand for the miracle. It gets tiresome writing "the Islamic tradition of Mohammed's ascent etc."

Importantly, Islam does not suffer at all if we regard the Night Journey as dream-inspired. Christianity suffers if we regard the Resurrection as figurative.

Since we are discussing the two events AS MIRACLES....

We are certain Muhammad existed; we know what he said and did and the effect.
We conclude that Christ probably existed.

Irrelevant to the OP. My guess is, you are more confident of Muhammed because the lack of miracles attributed to him. But the OP is asking for the historical evidence of one miracle that IS attributed to him.

(also, I would encourage you to do a little more research into Islam. Scholars are less and less certain of what sayings and deeds can actually be traced back to the man).

If we want to be historically honest, Islam wins without the flying horse.

The question is ABOUT the flying horse, as though it were a literal miracle.

Does the OP not make that clear?

[Realworldjack]

One man, simply leaves in writing what he claims, with no witnesses. The other, never writes at all that we know of, and yet is more than likely the most well know figure in all of history. How could you even compare the two?

We are no longer comparing two disputed miracles but the contributions of two religious figures.

For my own part I don't believe Muhammad had any contact with God nor do I believe the Koran is God's workmanship. But it exists, for all to read and many who read the original Arabic are astounded that the illiterate Muhammad was able to dictate it. Muhammad's exact time on earth is well documented as are his actions, his wives and his death.

On the other hand we have tales of a preacher who wrote nothing; appeared out of the blue at thirty and disappeared into the Middle Eastern sky. I think there's ample room for comparison, especially when some biographers claim Jesus was himself not just a Prophet, like Muhammad, but God, indeed.

We are no longer comparing two disputed miracles but the contributions of two religious figures.

I am not sure what you are talking about but, did you notice that I was responding to the very first post which was posted by, "rikuoamero.?" Did you also notice that I was responding to that particular post, and used a direct quote form that post?

So then, no matter what you and another member may be discussing, I was not responding to you, nor the other member, but was rather responding to the direct quote made by, "rikuoamero."

For my own part I don't believe Muhammad had any contact with God nor do I believe the Koran is God's workmanship.

This is certainly an opinion that you are entitled too. It does not cause it to be right, nor does it cause it to be a good opinion, rather like all others, it is simply an, opinion.

On the other hand we have tales of a preacher who wrote nothing; appeared out of the blue at thirty and disappeared into the Middle Eastern sky.

Oh really? Well just how does one simply "appear out of the blue" in history? It seems sort of strange that in the case of Muhammad, his events are "well documented", according to you, but the accounts of Jesus, are simply tales? How exactly does one determine between the two? I mean, in the case of Jesus we have letters that were exchanged between different parties at the time, so how does that constitute, tales?

I think there's ample room for comparison, especially when some biographers claim Jesus was himself not just a Prophet, like Muhammad, but God, indeed.

I am confused about what you are comparing here? Again, if you will notice, I was comparing the "historical credentials" which was the topic of the post I was responding too, on top of the fact, "historical credentials" was actually mentioned in the OP.

I then go on to compare the two as far as "historical credentials" are concerned, supplying supporting facts, and demonstrate how there really is no comparison, which you, have failed to respond to. Rather, you simply attempt to explain to me that I am off topic, when I was not responding to you, and I have demonstrated that I was not only on topic of the post I was responding to, I was also on topic of the OP, since "historical credentials" was brought up there.

If you are simply comparing the "contributions of two religious figures" then I fail to see this topic anywhere in the OP since it certainly seems to be comparing two claimed miraculous events, along with the, "historical credentials" that may back them up.

If this topic you are referring to was brought up elsewhere, then I have not read it, and was simply responding to the very first post.

[tfvespasianus]

(also, I would encourage you to do a little more research into Islam. Scholars are less and less certain of what sayings and deeds can actually be traced back to the man).

That this is stated apparently without irony speaks volumes as to the methodology and breadth of knowledge of the poster. It is truly a pearl.