Restored Topic

[Cogitoergosum]

Achiles had asked people to explain the rise of christianity. I don't know if it was supposed to prove that christianity was somehow special because of the way it rose, but how is that different than the rise of islam? Can you explain to me why you believe christianity to be better?

How do u explain the rise of christianity?

How do u explain the rise of islam?

1) The Gospels being written by at least the following dates
Mark 65-70 CE
Matthew 70-80 CE
Luke 80-85 CE

1) the koran being written about 700 C.E.

2) The letters of Paul and his writings on the subjects, specifically the parts where he refers to Jesus as a human, any of Jesus actions, and beliefs of himself and those he speaks about.

2) the "hadith" written as an add on to the kuran and the "ijtihad" written by imams that corroborate the divine message of mohammad and confirm his status as a prophet.

3) The writings of Josephus

referr to 2

4) The Historical account presented in the Talmud

The historical account in the Talmud of jesus is sketchy at best. Yeshua there is only a rabbi no magical powers, different set of parents than jesus, no disciples...
the historical account present in history books about mohammad and neighboring nations

5) The fact that the geography of the Gospels (especially Luke) is almost exact.

the geography in the history of islam and mohammad is accurate

6) The fact that Archeology has not uncovered anything that contradicts a Gospel, or acts, or Pauline letter account.

Archeology has not unproved anything in the koran

7) The beliefs of the very first Christians (Nazarenes).

the beliefs of the very first moslims

8) The accounts of history such as Caesar’s declaration around 60CE that bodies were never to be taken out of the graves, punishable by death, right near Nazareth.

I don't know what evidence that is, supposedly jesus's body is in heaven and not around nazareth. Multiple historical accounts confirm the existence of mohammad.

9) Later archeology and history such as Pliny's letters.

same as previous arguments

10) The conversion of Paul

the conversion of thousands of jews and christians of the time to islam.

11) The conversion of the early Jews, constituting the Council of Jerusalem
same as above

12) The Martyrdom of James

somebody killed him, so what?

13) The conversion of James

same as above

14) The martyrdom of the first apostles. ( I Know that there isn't solid evidence supporting these men being martyrs. However explain why the early church fathers would write about the details of their deaths, if something close to that did actually happen.)

martyrdom of the thousands of moslims while conquering lands and spreading islam.

so how exactly are these proofs of a divine religion?

[Easyrider]

I don't think anyone had to rely on Mark, or Matthew, or "Q", or whatever. What I constantly see amongst skeptics, and even some Biblical scholars, is a complete disregard for the Holy Spirit as being a source of Gospel information about the life of Jesus and what all he said, etc.

John 14:26 (Jesus speaking): "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Now unless people want to admit to an unfounded anti-supernatural bias, this one passage provides a clear and compelling vehicle by which common knowledge, and even unshared knowledge, about Christ, could be known by each of the separate Gospel authors.

[bernee51]

That's news to me. Traditionally a generation is 25 years. Are you just making this up?

A generation is the measurement of how long a group of people that could witness a certain event would live afterwards.

Why didn't you state you were using your interpretaion of the word 'generation' rather than the generally accepted one. Geneologists and historians generally accep 25-30 years being a 'generation'. If that is the case the first gospel was written a generation after tha supposed death of Jesus

[
Assuming that the disciples were in their twenties at Christ's death, that would put a generation at 70 some odd years.

Assuming assuming - yeah right. The life expectancy in classical Roman times has been estimated at approximately 28 years. In western europe at the end of the 19th century it was still only 37 years.

Your claim of 70 years is spurious...and wishful thinking.

[
I am talking about Jesus's generation. By your belief, everyone who was alive during Christ's life died just after the book of Mark was written.

It is generallly accepted that Mark was written around 64CE. many who were alive during the time Christ supposedly lived would have died by then. A 25 year old would have been in mid-50's - well above life expectancy.

[
Generations don't just up and dissappear, otherwise, everyone around would be 25 or younger.

Are you talikng of today or then?

Don't forget that the Jews never said that the apostles or Jesus never existed until recent years. That in and of itself is evidence enough that they existed. If Jesus and His apostles never existed, why didn't the Pharisees who were accused of killing him in the Bible ask, "Who is Jesus and how did we crucify him?"

I am playing a little of the 'deviil's advocate' here. I am of the opinion that it is likely that an influential rabbi who may have been called jesus existed, and he probably had devoted followers. I do not find it surprising that these followers may have died for their beliefs. Such behaviour is common thjroughout human history and ciontinues to this day.

What I do dispute is thay Jesus was any more 'divine' than you or I )or any sentient creature. The message supposedly delivered by jeus is no more true (or less) than any of the messages delivered by religious figures in recorded history.

[

Independent thought is good. Repeating the dubious opinions of apologists is another issue.

I wasn't repeating opinions. Just because I say that killing someone is wrong, does that mean I am parroting someone?

Straw man. That is not what you are claiming.

Then you might want to just back up, learn how to examine documents,

And you might like to back up and stop confusing 'faith' with 'facts'.

..you have to ask yourself why so many archaeological discoveries have backed up its stories. The Hittites are one prime example of the Bible being right when the scholars weren't.

One swallow does not a summer make.

[Goat]

I don't think anyone had to rely on Mark, or Matthew, or "Q", or whatever. What I constantly see amongst skeptics, and even some Biblical scholars, is a complete disregard for the Holy Spirit as being a source of Gospel information about the life of Jesus and what all he said, etc.

John 14:26 (Jesus speaking): "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Now unless people want to admit to an unfounded anti-supernatural bias, this one passage provides a clear and compelling vehicle by which common knowledge, and even unshared knowledge, about Christ, could be known by each of the separate Gospel authors.

Ah yes, a quote from Jesus that is showing that The Fathe, the son and the holy spirit are seperate, not one.

Thank you very much.

[dthmstr254]

Why didn't you state you were using your interpretaion of the word 'generation' rather than the generally accepted one. Geneologists and historians generally accep 25-30 years being a 'generation'. If that is the case the first gospel was written a generation after tha supposed death of Jesus

Assuming assuming - yeah right. The life expectancy in classical Roman times has been estimated at approximately 28 years. In western europe at the end of the 19th century it was still only 37 years.

Your claim of 70 years is spurious...and wishful thinking.

Then explain why the Jews didn't deem someone worthy of a leadership position until 30 years of age, an age that, by your claim here, didn't happen often enough to account for the large number of Pharisees and Saducees (around 100 per city). By those numbers, the Jews must have had some technology that we need today. A technology that allows a person to live three times as long as the supposed life expectancy. You might want to recheck your numbers against the cultures of the time. Now, before we get anymore off topic, I will make my claim again. The Bible appeared in its full form only one hundred years after Jesus's death, when many of the people who were there at the time of the events were still alive. The Hadith, which is supposedly the biography of Mohamed, appeared nearly 300 years after Mohamed's life. With 25000 copies (pre-printing press) of the Bible and only a small amount of copies of the Hadith, which one is more reliable? The Bible outdoes even the most trusted documents we have today.

[
I am talking about Jesus's generation. By your belief, everyone who was alive during Christ's life died just after the book of Mark was written.

It is generallly accepted that Mark was written around 64CE. many who were alive during the time Christ supposedly lived would have died by then. A 25 year old would have been in mid-50's - well above life expectancy.

[
Generations don't just up and dissappear, otherwise, everyone around would be 25 or younger.

Are you talikng of today or then?

Don't forget that the Jews never said that the apostles or Jesus never existed until recent years. That in and of itself is evidence enough that they existed. If Jesus and His apostles never existed, why didn't the Pharisees who were accused of killing him in the Bible ask, "Who is Jesus and how did we crucify him?"

I am playing a little of the 'deviil's advocate' here. I am of the opinion that it is likely that an influential rabbi who may have been called jesus existed, and he probably had devoted followers. I do not find it surprising that these followers may have died for their beliefs. Such behaviour is common thjroughout human history and ciontinues to this day.

What I do dispute is thay Jesus was any more 'divine' than you or I )or any sentient creature. The message supposedly delivered by jeus is no more true (or less) than any of the messages delivered by religious figures in recorded history.

[

Independent thought is good. Repeating the dubious opinions of apologists is another issue.

I wasn't repeating opinions. Just because I say that killing someone is wrong, does that mean I am parroting someone?

Straw man. That is not what you are claiming.

Then you might want to just back up, learn how to examine documents,

And you might like to back up and stop confusing 'faith' with 'facts'.

..you have to ask yourself why so many archaeological discoveries have backed up its stories. The Hittites are one prime example of the Bible being right when the scholars weren't.

One swallow does not a summer make.[/quote]

[Easyrider]

I don't think anyone had to rely on Mark, or Matthew, or "Q", or whatever. What I constantly see amongst skeptics, and even some Biblical scholars, is a complete disregard for the Holy Spirit as being a source of Gospel information about the life of Jesus and what all he said, etc.

John 14:26 (Jesus speaking): "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Now unless people want to admit to an unfounded anti-supernatural bias, this one passage provides a clear and compelling vehicle by which common knowledge, and even unshared knowledge, about Christ, could be known by each of the separate Gospel authors.

Ah yes, a quote from Jesus that is showing that The Fathe, the son and the holy spirit are seperate, not one.

Thank you very much.

You mean you didn't know that there's One God manifested in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? But anyway you're welcome!

[Easyrider]

What I do dispute is thay Jesus was any more 'divine' than you or I )or any sentient creature. The message supposedly delivered by jeus is no more true (or less) than any of the messages delivered by religious figures in recorded history.

If the other religious figures had the wealth of prophetic fulfillments and recorded supernatural miracles, including a physical resurrection, to back up their claims then you would have a good argument.

[Goat]

I don't think anyone had to rely on Mark, or Matthew, or "Q", or whatever. What I constantly see amongst skeptics, and even some Biblical scholars, is a complete disregard for the Holy Spirit as being a source of Gospel information about the life of Jesus and what all he said, etc.

John 14:26 (Jesus speaking): "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Now unless people want to admit to an unfounded anti-supernatural bias, this one passage provides a clear and compelling vehicle by which common knowledge, and even unshared knowledge, about Christ, could be known by each of the separate Gospel authors.

Ah yes, a quote from Jesus that is showing that The Fathe, the son and the holy spirit are seperate, not one.

Thank you very much.

You mean you didn't know that there's One God manifested in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? But anyway you're welcome!

You are welcome, considering you just demonstrated the exact opposite.

[McCulloch]

Ah yes, a quote from Jesus that is showing that The Father, the son and the holy spirit are seperate, not one.

You mean you didn't know that there's One God manifested in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)?

That is the mystery of the doctrine of the trinity. According to orthodox Christian theology the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons but one unified God. No, I don't know what that means.

[bernee51]

Then explain why the Jews didn't deem someone worthy of a leadership position until 30 years of age, an age that, by your claim here, didn't happen often enough to account for the large number of Pharisees and Saducees (around 100 per city).

I never made any such claim and I would think the answer is obvious...life expectancy of a certain period is an average for a population. Elite groups in a population are often familial. Elite groups have better access to food and sanitation. Elite groups have greater life expectancy. Were the apostles from elite groups or were they 'common' men?

The Bible appeared in its full form only one hundred years after Jesus's death, when many of the people who were there at the time of the events were still alive.

Wow.. you've now extended the life expectancy of witnesses to Jesus to in excess of 100 years.

You might like to re-check you figures

The Hadith, which is supposedly the biography of Mohamed, appeared nearly 300 years after Mohamed's life.

From - wiki..."A hadith was originally an oral tradition relevant to the actions and customs of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Starting the first Fitna of the 7th century, those receiving the hadith started to question the sources of the saying [1]. This resulted in a list of transmitters, for example "A told me that B told him that Muhammad said". This list was called an Isnad. The text itself came to be known as Matn.

The hadith were eventually recorded in written form, had their Isnad evaluated and collected into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar II (bin Abdul Aziz, grandson of Umar bin Khattab(RAA)2nd Caliph) during 8th century, something that solidified in the 9th century. These works are still today referred to in matters of Islamic law and History.

The hadith are prone to error and often misinterpreted. They are meant to be a secondary source of Islam, if followed at all. More and more muslims are reverting back to the Quran alone when they realise the method of compilation of hadith is based on hear-say."

With 25000 copies (pre-printing press) of the Bible and only a small amount of copies of the Hadith, which one is more reliable?

It depends on what you are trying to prove. In terms of factual history I would think they can be treated in the same way. With doubt.

The Bible outdoes even the most trusted documents we have today.

You are waxing lyrical. I can go upstairs and see one of the original copies of the magna carta. Can I do that with any of the gospels?

[achilles12604]

You have a point to a degree but your point does not cover all of Jesus miracles.

First, when I referred to secrecy, I was referring directly to his actions within the cave. The supernatural aspect of his work was 100% in secret.

Jesus supernatural nature was present for everyone to see. Yes you picked out examples which were probably not understood by people of that time. But as I have pointed out in my modern miracles thread, there are medical things happening even today which we don't understand. I also pointed out that the HOW isn't as important as the WHY in these cases.

This aside there are many more examples which do not fall under your argument. Blindness, lameness, deafness, leprosy. . . . these are all examples of instant healing, right in front of the crowds. And these symptoms can not be faked nor can being cured from these symptoms.

As for proof of Jesus miracles, please feel free to explain how hundreds of people could believe in them within 5 years of Jesus life which they were living in the very city where these supposed events took place, and take into consideration that other individuals were using these miracles as the cornerstone for founding a faith. (The Nazarenes)

The difference once again is the Muhammad's followers never had to be convinced of the actual factual nature of his encounter with the angel because they were never allowed to witness the event. Christians did have to account for supernatural claims because they claimed these events happened in full view of the public, were the cornerstone of their faith, and most importantly happened in such a manner as the people being preached to already had prior knowledge of the events being discussed. This would be like Muhammad making the claim that his religion was true because several hundred people came with him into the cave, saw and talked with the angel, and then began to record their experiences within 5 years or so.

All those miracles you talk about are only evidenced in the gospels, outside to gospels there is no proof for them. The Nazarenes believed in them a lot of other people did not believe in them. If jesus had done so many miracles which man in galilee would not have believed in him? a lot did not, and barabas was released instead of him.

What do you make of Josephus (60 years later), the talmud(150 years later), and the beliefs of the Nazarenes (5 years later). These are not biblical. Besides these are of course Paul's letters which at the very least refer to the bodily resurrection of Jesus (a miracle).

As for why would people reject him after seeing his miracles, I address this under another thread (Jesus Confusing Words page 1 I think) In short, when a person's preconceived "truths" are challenged, they can overlook ANYTHING which is contradictory to their original beliefs. Non-theists accuse Christians of doing this all the time.

This will teach me to cite my sources. I pulled most of what I wrote DIRECTLY from historical websites. Cut and pasted. Yet I didn't include these sites! Augh! stupid me.
My overriding point was that a Major difference between the two was bloodshed over the details of the bibles within a few years. Rightful succession was also an issue for Islam. Christians held the council of Jerusalem and cast lots for discipleship. Islam killed each other. These events were about the same time gap from the original events.

all these that you posted do not show major differences in islam teaching, so they fought over who will take over after mohammad. Moslims had armies and were able to fight with each other, if christians had armies at that time, the gnostics would have fought back.

So organized armies are required groups of different ideas to slaughter each other?

Unless you are referring to the Gnostic Gospels which were rejected for very good and specific reason given during the council of nicene, I am unfamiliar with anyone rejecting the Gospels early on. The gospels of Thomas, Peter, Mary, Judas and others were rejected for obvious reasons like, 1) not being written by an apostle 2) being written long after the events 3) including brand new gnostic ideas which contradicted the original teachings, etc. . . .

Do you mean those very good reasons are because they did not agree with the others?

I'll let you be the judge.

Which Gospel would be better?
1) Written 30-45 years after the events
2) Written 150-250 years after the events.

Which Gospel would be better?
1) Written by an apostle or follower of an apostle.
2) Written by someone so out of date, they couldn't possibly get info from an apostle.

Which Gospel would be better?
1) One written without additional ideas which appeared much later but didn't exist during the time
2) Include any and all ideas whenever they come along.

You be the judge. Please let me know which one you would have chosen.

I challenge you to find instances of Christians slaughtering non-converting Pagans.

You find a source listing murder of unbelievers before 300 CE and I will adjust my thinking. I don't think you will find anything like this.

As for Catholic and Protestant, sure. But that occurred 1200 years later. Not right away. A more accurate example would be James vs Paul over Jewish laws. However this doesn't really count either because James never tried to kill Paul, nor visa versa. Within a few years, Islam's sections were at war.

Again moslims had an empire and were armed so they fought, chrisitians at that time were did not have empires and armies,

So once again you are implying that differing views require armies and empires before they can kill each other?

constantine did a lot of killing for the church, and when the roman empire fell and christian kingdoms arose they fought amongst each other all thru medieval times. what are you talking about?

Constantine didn't appear on the scene for several hundred years. To compare to Islam you would need to figure out how people in the time of Paul were killing each other or pagans over differences of opinion about the details of their religion.