Historical Jesus

[Dawnofhope]

Hello Adrian. I thought you were done with our discussion, good to hear from you.

I think we have spoken enough about the resurrection. You seem to enjoy posting on this thread so I thought we could entertain each other some more.

Examining the life and teachings of Jesus and better understanding Him interests me. To understand Jesus is to understand God, To properly understand God we have to know that the God of the NT and the OT are the same God. We both know that.

1. I was just responding to your claim about Muhammad's attitude toward Jews and it depends which part of the Quran you read. Many scholars consider the Quran to be almost two books. The first part was Muhammad's peaceful attempts to promote Islam (it didn't work), the second part of it was about spreading Islam by any means necessary. The bad thing is the second part abrogates the first part. So the butcher Muhammad replaces the peaceful Muhammad.

Muhammad revealed the verses that make up the Quran over a 20+ year period. During some of that time many of His own people wanted Him and His followers dead and pursued Him relentlessly. Some passages are revealed during this period of time. As with the bible we need to consider passages of the Quran in their historic context. As with the historic Jesus there is much misunderstanding of the historic person of Muhammad.

2. What do you mean Christ was completed?

That was a typo. It should read Christ was completely inspired by God. John 10:30, John 14:9

So how do we reconcile God's more peaceful and loving nature expressed through the New Testament compared to Gods wrathful and vengeful nature in the Old Testament. One way is simply to consider the historic context as we should do for any part of the bible.

3. Lets pretend for a minute Christ taught to be peaceful so that the Romans wouldn't get mad at the Jews. The Romans killed him, the Romans persecuted and killed the disciples, the Roman empire persecuted the early Church. Why was Rome so zealous to kill off a religion that preached peace with Rome at all costs?
4. It would be real hard to find two things as diametrically opposed at all levels as early Christianity and the Roman empire. Maybe liberalism and rationality but I am not sure.

There are many reasons to be peaceful and there is more than one meaning to turn the other cheek. In regards to the Roman Empire, there was an important contrast between the Messiah the Jews expected according the prophecies related to the Davidic Kingship and how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. The Jews expected their Messiah to be a warrior King who would free them from the captivity of the Roman. Jesus did not fulfil this literally. Rather he avoided any conflict with the Roman authorities and advised his followers at the appointed time to flee Jerusalem and Judea. (Matthew 24).

It was really the Jews who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion through their rejection of their Messiah, the enmity propagated by Jewish leaders, and ultimately by rejection from their chief priest Caiaphas.

Perhaps Nero did the Christians a favour through His persecution to prompt them to get on and obey Jesus' instructions to preach the Gospel.

I didn't deny that God has, could, or shouldn't take life. I said Muhammad took lives without regard for God or Allah. That story I mentioned says Muhammad simply told one of his followers to decide what to do with a tribe of Jews (Allah is not even mentioned), the man said kill the men, and Muhammad apparently could care less.

However it was men who followed God's commandments. There is a paucity of evidence to support your version of events in regards to Muhammad. If it did happen, however it happened, it was in the context of Muhammad and his followers being besieged by the Quraysh tribe and the possible involvement of the local Jewish inhabitants.

Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

Apparently Muhammad's time for war began on March 624AD and has lasted to the present. I do not deny God's right to kill the humans he has complete sovereignty over, I deny that any evidence exists to show Muhammad ever had God's permission to do anything. In fact at times Muhammad specifically said he had not heard from Allah, yet killed people anyway.

Baha'is side with the Sha'i Muslims regarding Ali and the Imams being the rightful successors of Muhammad and not the Caliphate. The true Islam as been perverted just as Christianity has been perverted by various institutions that would presume to speak in his name.

That is like saying doughnuts and tires are round so we should eat them both or drive on both. Or like saying hummingbirds and Mig-25s both have wings so they both must have hatched from the same nest. I never claimed that biblical figures had never killed others. The Bible records history. The history of people killing with God's permission and people who killed without God's permission. The only arguments to be had are which is which. Are you defending Muhammad concerning the battle of the trench or are you condemning the Hebrew's wars to take Canaan (if so which battles)? Again, just like theological claims, claims about historic battles do not come in monolithic blocks which all either stand or fall together. You seem to specialize in the attempt to make them so.

I'm simply demonstrating your contradiction. There is little or no real historic evidence to support either event really happened. If we compared the two events the slaughter of Canaanites is the bloodiest and most brutal by far. If the book of Joshua is taken at face value then I can understand why God would have commanded it. The actual evidence of the slaughter of the Jews from the Quran is spurious. Scholars examining the historic evidence are divided in their opinions. If the Jews were caught up with the Quraysh tribe then Muhammad's alleged behaviour makes more sense.

Also, killing everyone in a geographical area is not genocide, it is called total war (but even total wars are rarely total). Genocide is to kill off the members of a racial group (or something similar) because of their race (or something similar). If you post a specific battle we can see if it was genocide, whether it was justifiable or not, and whether it was divinely sanctioned or not? However you can't (or at least you shouldn't) lump everything together into an arbitrary set and then condemn or approve them all. I have heard of painting with a broad brush but your painting with a flame thrower.

I simply arranged a cut and paste from Wikipedia. My point is that we are judged by the same standard that we judge others. We need to have better arguments than God commanded this but He didn't command that. There is a case for God guiding Muhammad and the Muslims just as He guided Moses and the Hebrew peoples.

As you will appreciate, it was the Christian crusaders who retook Jerusalem by appalling behaviour to the inhabitants of their city, no doubt inspired by the book of Joshua. Do we assume that is what God would have wanted because it could be justified from the words of the bible?

 

[1robin]

As I've said, I'm not discussing doctrine, but history.

My position is that it is a very opaque period due to the lack of uncontroversial sources. Trying to reconstruct what happened from a 'secular academic' perspective is very complex and there is very little consensus in the field.

I believe you are a Muslim if I am not mistaken. If early Islamic history is so obscure, how can you (basically) gamble your soul on the Quran's propositions. Christianity is unique, only it promises and demands a personal experience with God for all true believers. IOW Islam and Christianity in that they require intellectual consent to propositions of different types, but only Christianity of every single follower a confirming experience with a risen Christ. Islam like most faiths demands intellectual consent but only offers a divine experience to some small fraction of it's followers. You will not know if you got it wrong until it is too late to chose something else. I actually found out further down your not a Muslim which makes your position far more explainable.

What I said was the Quran can be pretty reliably dated to the 7th C.

Agreed, but from Muhammad to Uthman there is a perfect vacuum. The Quran is only as good as some random person got it years later. Muhammad merely scratched stuff on bark, stone, bones, paper, etc.... There are accounts of surah going missing, abrogation, retractions, etc....

Things get more complicated beyond that. None of the Muslim sources records that Christians and Jews took part in the 'Islamic' conquests for example.

Well the story I brought up was Islam's killing Jews because they did not take part in Islamic battles. Beyond that one point I didn't really make any claims about Christians and Jews fighting in the conquest period. During the conquests it was basically convert, submit, or die. Muslims went from killing each other because of disagreement on what the Quran said, to focusing on killing others.

You can use what you like. Doesn't mean I have to believe they are accurate though.

You should at least show why you do not think they are accurate.

It's actually in a discussion forum.

I don't think so. You have the umbrella forum called ReligiousForums, then you have individual forums like discussion or debate forums, I believe this thread is under the general debate forum tab, not the general discussion forum tab.

Different positions is not the same as starting from different axioms. I prefer to discuss history starting with the assumption that nothing can be explained by supernatural events. Whether or not that is the correct methodology is a completely different discussion.

Well if you do that in contexts like Leibniz of Kalam you run out of nature but still require an explanation. The cause of nature can't be natural, it most transcend nature, or be supernatural. I do not rule out or rule in supernatural events. I simply look at the evidence and conclude what the best explanation is.

If you are interested in the truth, what do you think you know about him that reflects reality?

He was a tyrant, he was sinful, he had fits when he supposedly had revelations which are a perfect match for what the bible says accompanies demon possession, that no one wanted his religion when he was being peaceful, but that his faith grew exponentially when he became militant and therefor had money, power, and authority to hand out. That the Quran is a mix of heretical Jewish teachings, Gnosticism, perverted Christian doctrines, pre Islamic mysticism, and whole sale plagiarism, etc.......

I pointed out a mistake you made and then you replied with numerous other points which I presumably disagreed with, can't really remember now.

You pointed out that it was not the Quran that claimed what I said it did. I kind of agreed, but said that mainstream Islamic scholars do claim the Quran alludes to the battle of the trench, and I said the accepted Tarikhs, hadith, and early biographies speak of the event. You have basically responded with no one can know what happened during that time frame. That is fine by me but I do not know where to go if that be the case.

Because I find it interesting as I like late antique history. Discussing it tends to motivate me to read more and I've got hundreds of sources that I haven't got round to reading yet as I accumulate a lot faster than I read.

The opacity of the period makes it especially interesting to me.

I think the opacity is preferable to you. Where it exist in biblical history is disappointing, I want clarity no matter if it convenient or not for my faith.

Perhaps they might be of use if you were debating theology with a Muslim.

I thought I was debating a Muslim. Regardless the credibility and applicability do not change based on the theology of the person reading them.

Otherwise you could try reading some of them and see what you think. The 1st one is pretty short.

What do we actually know about Mohammed? P. Crone
What do we actually know about Mohammed?

History and Heilsgeschichte in early Islam: Some observations on prophetic history and biography C. Robinson
President's Office

Muhājirūn as a Name for the First/Seventh Century Muslims I. Lindstedt
https://www.academia.edu/11682900/Muhājirūn_as_a_Name_for_the_First_Seventh_Century_Muslims_JNES_

This is a great book which compiles all of the earliest non-Muslim historical texts :

Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam - Robert Hoyland

Seeing Islam as Others saw it by Robert G Hoyland

Now that I know I am not debating a Muslim what is authoritative will have to change. Assuming you were a Muslim I was concentrating of texts that are accepted by Muslim, for the most part. Before I set in to reading a bunch of links can you tell me what it is you want me to look for at them? If I am asked to invest significant time, I must justify it.

I got two paragraphs into your first link and saw the following:
In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts. For all that, we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.
What do we actually know about Mohammed?

That basically says.
1. We know almost nothing about Muhammad.
2. However we know more about him than Jesus.
3. In reality we have more textual knowledge about Christ than any other figure of ancient history, including eyewitness testimony to most of the core events in Christ's life.
4. Plus at least 40 extra biblical author's mention Christ or the very early explosion of a faith based on his existence, despite constant persecution.

 

[1robin]

I think we have spoken enough about the resurrection. You seem to enjoy posting on this thread so I thought we could entertain each other some more.

That will be fine, however my being in this thread is due to coincidence that the OP.

Examining the life and teachings of Jesus and better understanding Him interests me. To understand Jesus is to understand God, To properly understand God we have to know that the God of the NT and the OT are the same God. We both know that.

Agreed

Muhammad revealed the verses that make up the Quran over a 20+ year period. During some of that time many of His own people wanted Him and His followers dead and pursued Him relentlessly. Some passages are revealed during this period of time. As with the bible we need to consider passages of the Quran in their historic context. As with the historic Jesus there is much misunderstanding of the historic person of Muhammad.

There is more textual evidence for Christ than any figure from ancient history. If there is a lack of understanding concerning Christ's character it is the fault of the reader not the evidence.

The Quran has two parts that are so distinctive that scholars have claimed there are actually two Qurans. The Mecca and the Medina section of the Quran are very different.

1. The first concerns the period where Muhammad tried spreading his faith peacefully. Outside of his family and friends no one wanted what he was selling. This is the part of the Quran where most of the peaceful commands exist. During the first dozen years or so Muhammad only had a few thousand followers at most.

2. People finally got tired of him and his faith and chased him out of Mecca. By coincidence some tribal leaders gave Muhammad money and power to resolve some disputes around Medina. Instead he used the soldiers and money to raid caravans. Once he had money, power, and authority to bestow the amount of followers he recruited went from a few thousand to over 100,000. In this part of the Quran you have all the violent commands in the Quran. It gets even worse because the later violent verses abrogate the earlier peaceful verses.

That was a typo. It should read Christ was completely inspired by God. John 10:30, John 14:9

So how do we reconcile God's more peaceful and loving nature expressed through the New Testament compared to Gods wrathful and vengeful nature in the Old Testament. One way is simply to consider the historic context as we should do for any part of the bible.

By years of research and a lot of typing. I will give a brief explanation for now.

The OT and NT were given for vastly different purposes. The OT was given to do 3 primary things.
1. Give the context and back story to the eventual appearance of Christ. Genealogies, etc......
2. To make Israel into a very unique conduit. to stand out from other ANE tribes.
3. To use that unique cultural group as a conduit by which God's revelation would be delivered, culminating with Christ.

The NT was given to pick up where the OT left off.
1. It was to show how the OT prophecies came to pass in the NT.
2. To reveal God's redemptive act through Christ's sacrifice.
3. To govern a world wide religion instead of a tiny political state.
4. To expand on themes (like eschatology, heaven, Hell, etc......) mentioned in the OT.

It is easy to see that rules given to govern a tiny nation state would include wars, punishments, and laws. Since the NT was given to govern a believer's personal life (heart) instead of a cultural group it has no need for commands about war. BTW many of the laws in the OT were practical, not spiritual. Some had to do with sanitation, the preparation of food, and social reform. As mankind (God's covenants) advanced these practical matters were overcome in different ways so that the same laws were no longer necessary.

There are many reasons to be peaceful and there is more than one meaning to turn the other cheek. In regards to the Roman Empire, there was an important contrast between the Messiah the Jews expected according the prophecies related to the Davidic Kingship and how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. The Jews expected their Messiah to be a warrior King who would free them from the captivity of the Roman. Jesus did not fulfil this literally. Rather he avoided any conflict with the Roman authorities and advised his followers at the appointed time to flee Jerusalem and Judea. (Matthew 24).

Paul wrote more of the NT than any other apostle (perhaps combined). He did not fear the Roman empire, he actually specifically went to Rome to conduct his apostolic ministry, he even had Roman citizenship.

I agree with you that Christ taught non-violence, I just disagree with you about why he taught that. God does not fear men and could wipe us all out in a millisecond if he desired. In fact Mathew says,

New International Version
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Christ commanded demons and said he could call upon legions of angels to defend himself if he desired. He did not tell the apostles to fear Rome, he taught them to not get entangled with this world's moral failures. In fact he said that many of his followers would be required to die for the faith in the same way he did.

It was really the Jews who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion through their rejection of their Messiah, the enmity propagated by Jewish leaders, and ultimately by rejection from their chief priest Caiaphas.

I agree, Jerusalem was said to be the city which kills it's own prophets.
New International Version
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

Perhaps Nero did the Christians a favour through His persecution to prompt them to get on and obey Jesus' instructions to preach the Gospel.

This is a little more speculative than I tend to be. The thing that isn't speculative is that Christianity grows in triumph or persecution. I am going to separate this for convenience.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

However it was men who followed God's commandments. There is a paucity of evidence to support your version of events in regards to Muhammad. If it did happen, however it happened, it was in the context of Muhammad and his followers being besieged by the Quraysh tribe and the possible involvement of the local Jewish inhabitants.

Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

That is not what happened. Muhammad had forced (under threaten of violence) the Qurayza tribe to support him in his battles. He fought so often and against so many I can't remember who it was that he was fighting but in this case it wasn't the Qurayza. He was fighting someone when he called upon the Qurayza tribe to fight for him. Some agreed and some refused, he had those who didn't killed.

I have no idea what amount equals a paucity, do you? Regardless however much evidence there are for this event it is all on one side.

Baha'is side with the Sha'i Muslims regarding Ali and the Imams being the rightful successors of Muhammad and not the Caliphate. The true Islam as been perverted just as Christianity has been perverted by various institutions that would presume to speak in his name.

I wasn't discussing the rightful heir to Muhammad. I think it is a false religion and an immoral system, regardless of who should be running at a specific time. Your going to have to show me what "true Islam" is, how you know that, what verses you refer to, how you know they were corrupted, and what the verse should say, and how you know these things.

I'm simply demonstrating your contradiction. There is little or no real historic evidence to support either event really happened. If we compared the two events the slaughter of Canaanites is the bloodiest and most brutal by far. If the book of Joshua is taken at face value then I can understand why God would have commanded it. The actual evidence of the slaughter of the Jews from the Quran is spurious. Scholars examining the historic evidence are divided in their opinions. If the Jews were caught up with the Quraysh tribe then Muhammad's alleged behaviour makes more sense.

It is almost certain that figures in biblical history and the history of Islam have killed many people. I am simply saying that does not mean both are either justifiable or unjustifiable. You can't claim that all cases where a human killed another human must stand or fall together.

I simply arranged a cut and paste from Wikipedia. My point is that we are judged by the same standard that we judge others. We need to have better arguments than God commanded this but He didn't command that. There is a case for God guiding Muhammad and the Muslims just as He guided Moses and the Hebrew peoples.

That is exactly the standard we need. In no way can you show anything God commanded could even theoretically be wrong. It may be that it is hard for us to know whether God commanded an action or not, but that is the correct standard to use. God is not subjected to any moral standard beyond his own nature. Who could possibly sit in judgment over God, what standard could he appeal to?

As you will appreciate, it was the Christian crusaders who retook Jerusalem by appalling behaviour to the inhabitants of their city, no doubt inspired by the book of Joshua. Do we assume that is what God would have wanted because it could be justified from the words of the bible?

I agree that the crusades were immoral, what does that have to do with Christianity, especially the book of Joshua? The NT covenant (grace) replaced the OT covenant (the law) because God said he found fault with the first covenant. What was necessary to establish Israel and defend it has nothing to do with events hundreds or a thousand years later. The covenant in place during the crusades was the NT not the OT. Once you give actual verses or specific events I can evaluate it in it's context, I cannot even evaluate events that occurred in one context being considered in another.

Good to hear from you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey, Adrian, hope you're well.

I hope you don't mind me adding something to this discussion:

If we compared the two events the slaughter of Canaanites is the bloodiest and most brutal by far.

It wasn't a racial issue, it was a religious issue. (Yahweh told His people that the Canaanites, if allowed to continue, would filter in and corrupt their worship.) This can be seen by the mercy that was extended to the Gibeonites. They were willing to change and accept Yahweh as the real God, and Jehovah accepted them. But, again, war against Canaan was God-ordained. He had to protect His people. Today, there is no one nation approved by God; only individuals out of all nations. -- Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35; Isaiah 2:1-4.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[metis]

But, again, war against Canaan was God-ordained.

Except that the "Canaanites" might be us as there's no archaeological evidence of any such struggle. Many archaeologists believe there was more likely some cultural conflict between our coastal versus our highland peoples. thus an internal conflict of sorts.

 

[1robin]

However it was men who followed God's commandments. There is a paucity of evidence to support your version of events in regards to Muhammad. If it did happen, however it happened, it was in the context of Muhammad and his followers being besieged by the Quraysh tribe and the possible involvement of the local Jewish inhabitants.

Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

That is not what happened. Muhammad had forced (under threaten of violence) the Qurayza tribe to support him in his battles. He fought so often and against so many I can't remember who it was that he was fighting but in this case it wasn't the Qurayza. He was fighting someone when he called upon the Qurayza tribe to fight for him. Some agreed and some refused, he had those who didn't killed.

I have no idea what amount equals a paucity, do you? Regardless however much evidence there are for this event it is all on one side.

Baha'is side with the Sha'i Muslims regarding Ali and the Imams being the rightful successors of Muhammad and not the Caliphate. The true Islam as been perverted just as Christianity has been perverted by various institutions that would presume to speak in his name.

I wasn't discussing the rightful heir to Muhammad. I think it is a false religion and an immoral system, regardless of who should be running at a specific time. Your going to have to show me what "true Islam" is, how you know that, what verses you refer to, how you know they were corrupted, and what the verse should say, and how you know these things.

I'm simply demonstrating your contradiction. There is little or no real historic evidence to support either event really happened. If we compared the two events the slaughter of Canaanites is the bloodiest and most brutal by far. If the book of Joshua is taken at face value then I can understand why God would have commanded it. The actual evidence of the slaughter of the Jews from the Quran is spurious. Scholars examining the historic evidence are divided in their opinions. If the Jews were caught up with the Quraysh tribe then Muhammad's alleged behaviour makes more sense.

It is almost certain that figures in biblical history and the history of Islam have killed many people. I am simply saying that does not mean both are either justifiable or unjustifiable. You can't claim that all cases where a human killed another human must stand or fall together. BTW what object standard judges evidence to be spurious? These terms you use to comment on the amount of historical evidence for an event appear to all be subjective and relative.

I simply arranged a cut and paste from Wikipedia. My point is that we are judged by the same standard that we judge others. We need to have better arguments than God commanded this but He didn't command that. There is a case for God guiding Muhammad and the Muslims just as He guided Moses and the Hebrew peoples.

That is exactly the standard we need. In no way can you show anything God commanded could even theoretically be wrong. It may be that it is hard for us to know whether God commanded an action or not, but that is the correct standard to use. God is not subjected to any moral standard beyond his own nature. Who could possibly sit in judgment over God, what standard could he appeal to?

As you will appreciate, it was the Christian crusaders who retook Jerusalem by appalling behaviour to the inhabitants of their city, no doubt inspired by the book of Joshua. Do we assume that is what God would have wanted because it could be justified from the words of the bible?

I agree that the crusades were immoral, what does that have to do with Christianity, especially the book of Joshua? The NT covenant (grace) replaced the OT covenant (the law) because God said he found fault with the first covenant. What was necessary to establish Israel and defend it has nothing to do with events hundreds or a thousand years later. The covenant in place during the crusades was the NT not the OT. Once you give actual verses or specific events I can evaluate them in the contexts they occurred in, I cannot even consider events that occurred in one context but are being considered in another. You did not even explain which crusade you are condemning.

Good to hear from you.

 

[1robin]

However it was men who followed God's commandments. There is a paucity of evidence to support your version of events in regards to Muhammad. If it did happen, however it happened, it was in the context of Muhammad and his followers being besieged by the Quraysh tribe and the possible involvement of the local Jewish inhabitants.

Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

That is not what happened. Muhammad had forced (under threaten of violence) the Qurayza tribe to support him in his battles. He fought so often and against so many I can't remember who it was that he was fighting but in this case it wasn't the Qurayza. He was fighting someone when he called upon the Qurayza tribe to fight for him. Some agreed and some refused, he had those who didn't killed.

I have no idea what amount equals a paucity, do you? Regardless however much evidence there are for this event it is all on one side.

Baha'is side with the Sha'i Muslims regarding Ali and the Imams being the rightful successors of Muhammad and not the Caliphate. The true Islam as been perverted just as Christianity has been perverted by various institutions that would presume to speak in his name.

I wasn't discussing the rightful heir to Muhammad. I think it is a false religion and an immoral system, regardless of who should be running at a specific time. Your going to have to show me what "true Islam" is, how you know that, what verses you refer to, how you know they were corrupted, and what the verse should say, and how you know these things.

I'm simply demonstrating your contradiction. There is little or no real historic evidence to support either event really happened. If we compared the two events the slaughter of Canaanites is the bloodiest and most brutal by far. If the book of Joshua is taken at face value then I can understand why God would have commanded it. The actual evidence of the slaughter of the Jews from the Quran is spurious. Scholars examining the historic evidence are divided in their opinions. If the Jews were caught up with the Quraysh tribe then Muhammad's alleged behaviour makes more sense.

It is almost certain that figures in biblical history and the history of Islam have killed many people. I am simply saying that does not mean both are either justifiable or unjustifiable. You can't claim that all cases where a human killed another human must stand or fall together. BTW what object standard judges evidence to be spurious? These terms you use to comment on the amount of historical evidence for an event appear to all be subjective and relative.

I simply arranged a cut and paste from Wikipedia. My point is that we are judged by the same standard that we judge others. We need to have better arguments than God commanded this but He didn't command that. There is a case for God guiding Muhammad and the Muslims just as He guided Moses and the Hebrew peoples.

That is exactly the standard we need. In no way can you show anything God commanded could even theoretically be wrong. It may be that it is hard for us to know whether God commanded an action or not, but that is the correct standard to use. God is not subjected to any moral standard beyond his own nature. Who could possibly sit in judgment over God, what standard could he appeal to?

As you will appreciate, it was the Christian crusaders who retook Jerusalem by appalling behaviour to the inhabitants of their city, no doubt inspired by the book of Joshua. Do we assume that is what God would have wanted because it could be justified from the words of the bible?

I agree that the crusades were immoral, what does that have to do with Christianity, especially the book of Joshua? The NT covenant (grace) replaced the OT covenant (the law) because God said he found fault with the first covenant. What was necessary to establish Israel and defend it has nothing to do with events hundreds or a thousand years later. The covenant in place during the crusades was the NT not the OT. Once you give actual verses or specific events I can evaluate them in the contexts they occurred in, I cannot even consider events that occurred in one context but are being considered in another. You did not even explain which crusade you are condemning.

Good to hear from you.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think so. You have the umbrella forum called ReligiousForums, then you have individual forums like discussion or debate forums, I believe this thread is under the general debate forum tab, not the general discussion forum tab.

"interfaith discussion"

You should at least show why you do not think they are accurate.

I have, because they were written in the 8th-9th C, weren't written to be objective history and are full of obvious inaccuracies.

During the conquests it was basically convert, submit, or die.

This is a myth. The conquered people didn't really notice that they were following a new religion, let alone were trying to force people to convert to it. It would also make little sense if Jews and Christians were among the conquerors. The religion was nowhere near as fully formed as theological sources claim it was. The word Muslims took till around the end on the century to become common (see the Lindstetdt text I linked to). Earliest texts discussing Islam are in the Hoyland book I linked to.

They got the same option that all conquered people got in those days, submit and pay tax or be prepared to fight. Not really much difference form being conquered by Romans of Persians, those who fought were made an example of to discourage resistance, most of those who paid were left alone to run their own affairs as before to encourage others to do likewise.

As a matter of fact, Jizya or poll tax had been in vogue since before the advent of Islam. The Greeks are reported to have imposed a similar tax upon the inhabitants of the coastal regions of Asia Minor during 500 B.C. The Romans imposed similar taxes upon the people they conquered, and the amount was much heavier than what was later imposed by the Muslims. The Persians are also reported to have introduced a similar tax upon their subjects.6 According to Shibli Nu'mani, the word Jizya itself is the Arabicised version of the word Kizyat, meaning a levy which the Persian rulers used to employ in administering the affairs of war. Shibli further indicates that this term was either in currency in both the languages, or the Arabs adapted it from the Persian language.

Whatever the case, it is certain that the Arabs first knew about this tax from the Persians. The Sasanid emperor Nawsherwan is reported to have introduced a tax, upon his subjects also termed as Jizya by the Arab historians, with the exemption of the nobility, satraps, military personnel, secretaries and those in the service of the emperor, at the varying rates of 12/8/6/2 dirhams upon each person.

THE CONCEPT OF JIZYA IN EARLY ISLAM,
Ziauddin Ahmad
Islamic Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4

That the Quran is a mix of heretical Jewish teachings, Gnosticism, perverted Christian doctrines, pre Islamic mysticism, and whole sale plagiarism, etc.......

It's largely a commentary on Biblical and parabiblical traditions, especially Syriac Christianity which seems to be the reflect the environment from which it emerged.

You pointed out that it was not the Quran that claimed what I said it did. I kind of agreed, but said that mainstream Islamic scholars do claim the Quran alludes to the battle of the trench, and I said the accepted Tarikhs, hadith, and early biographies speak of the event. You have basically responded with no one can know what happened during that time frame. That is fine by me but I do not know where to go if that be the case.

I'm saying that it doesn't refer to to the events you say it does and much of the tradition emerged later to explain aspects of the Quran which were not understood by even the earliest exegetes.

I think the opacity is preferable to you. Where it exist in biblical history is disappointing, I want clarity no matter if it convenient or not for my faith.

History is what it is, you have the sources you have. Clarity rarely exists in ancient history and can't be manufactured out of convenience.

Trying to piece it together though is what makes it particularly interesting to me.

I thought I was debating a Muslim. Regardless the credibility and applicability do not change based on the theology of the person reading them.

Your sources were outdated and unreliable and don't really reflect modern scholarship which has changed significantly over the past 30 years.

Now that I know I am not debating a Muslim what is authoritative will have to change. Assuming you were a Muslim I was concentrating of texts that are accepted by Muslim, for the most part. Before I set in to reading a bunch of links can you tell me what it is you want me to look for at them? If I am asked to invest significant time, I must justify it.

Read them if you want to learn more about the topic from a historical rather than theological perspective. It might give you a better understanding of why it is problematic to trust the traditional narrative you are often repeating uncritically.

 

[1robin]

Hey, Adrian, hope you're well.

I hope you don't mind me adding something to this discussion:



It wasn't a racial issue, it was a religious issue. (Yahweh told His people that the Canaanites, if allowed to continue, would filter in and corrupt their worship.) This can be seen by the mercy that was extended to the Gibeonites. They were willing to change and accept Yahweh as the real God, and Jehovah accepted them. But, again, war against Canaan was God-ordained. He had to protect His people. Today, there is no one nation approved by God; only individuals out of all nations. -- Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35; Isaiah 2:1-4.

Take care, my cousin.

Hello HC, I also wanted to add that in many cases God specifically says why he wanted certain groups wiped out.

The antediluvians -

New International Version
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

The Babylonians -

New International Version
for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.

The Canaanites and others -

“It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you…” (Deut. 9:5)

“Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.” (Lev. 18:24-25)

“When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations…because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.” (Deut. 18:9, 12)
https://bible.org/article/canaanites-genocide-or-judgment

Notice the interesting description of the Amorites -

New International Version
In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.

God was willing to let 4 generations of his own people suffer before enacting vengeance on the Amorites.

Genesis 15:16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

When you have verse after verse pointing out why God was justified in his actions against certain nations or groups, it is easy to conclude he must have had sufficient reasons even for the judgments he ordered where he does not give his specific reasons for doing so. It is especially easy to see his reasons for ordering the Hebrews to wipe out the Canaanites or the Philistines, because the Hebrews failed to do so, which resulted in the very thing God had ordered the attacks to stop. Israel had to suffer judgments against it's self because instead of wiping out certain groups they intermingled with them and their morality and purity compromised their effectiveness as God's chosen conduit for his revelation.

 

[1robin]

"interfaith discussion"

And the tab after that says comparative religion. This is somewhat bizarre because those terms seem to contradict each other. How do you compare two things if both people are in the same camp? Should have been interfaith discussion - comparative doctrine.

I have, because they were written in the 8th-9th C, weren't written to be objective history and are full of obvious inaccuracies.

That is far too general a conclusion. You can't hand wave away every source I gave with a generality. It does not follow that testimonies from 200 years later must be wrong entirely. Especially since you seem to place a high value on works from contemporary times. Take your pick, either time dooms all testimony or improves it all, but not both and neither. Plus you must show the specific parts I quoted are inaccurate and why. Evidence and testimonial claims are not all in the same monolithic block, which is either all wrong or all accurate. I believe Islam is a false religion but even I won't paint it's texts in a brush that broad.

This is a myth. The conquered people didn't really notice that they were following a new religion, let alone were trying to force people to convert to it. It would also make little sense if Jews and Christians were among the conquerors. The religion was nowhere near as fully formed as theological sources claim it was. The word Muslims took till around the end on the century to become common (see the Lindstetdt text I linked to). Earliest texts discussing Islam are in the Hoyland book I linked to.

1. How dose a faith go from basically Muhammad's family and friends to controlling much of the Mediterranean world in around 100 years peacefully or defensively? Why were Islamic armies fighting in France if not a conquest?
2. What does Jizya mean if not what I described?
3. I made no claim about how mature the Islamic faith was at the time of the conquest.

Augustus, I have run out of time. Please hold up here until I can get to the rest of your post. I do not want to get out of sync.

 

[1robin]

They got the same option that all conquered people got in those days, submit and pay tax or be prepared to fight. Not really much difference form being conquered by Romans of Persians, those who fought were made an example of to discourage resistance, most of those who paid were left alone to run their own affairs as before to encourage others to do likewise.

First you said what I claimed was a myth, then in the next paragraph you agree to everything I said. What you said is quite telling, you basically said that Islam and other conquests were similar. If Islam is similar to Alexander the great's Greece and Caesar's Rome, why should anyone think it was driven by anything except the tyranny which has driven other conquests? Islam claims to be from God, why does it look exactly like it was driven by anything but the same Greed that drove most other conquests?

As a matter of fact, Jizya or poll tax had been in vogue since before the advent of Islam. The Greeks are reported to have imposed a similar tax upon the inhabitants of the coastal regions of Asia Minor during 500 B.C. The Romans imposed similar taxes upon the people they conquered, and the amount was much heavier than what was later imposed by the Muslims. The Persians are also reported to have introduced a similar tax upon their subjects.6 According to Shibli Nu'mani, the word Jizya itself is the Arabicised version of the word Kizyat, meaning a levy which the Persian rulers used to employ in administering the affairs of war. Shibli further indicates that this term was either in currency in both the languages, or the Arabs adapted it from the Persian language.

Whatever the case, it is certain that the Arabs first knew about this tax from the Persians. The Sasanid emperor Nawsherwan is reported to have introduced a tax, upon his subjects also termed as Jizya by the Arab historians, with the exemption of the nobility, satraps, military personnel, secretaries and those in the service of the emperor, at the varying rates of 12/8/6/2 dirhams upon each person.

THE CONCEPT OF JIZYA IN EARLY ISLAM,

I searched for Persia in an article about the origins of the Jizya, the only places where Persia was mentioned were where it was abolished.

However for the heck of it lets go with the idea that it existed in some form in earlier civilizations. Why is Islam again just a repackage of the same garbage that proceeded it? The OT actually forbid interest concerning loans. The Bible does not look like every other culture it followed. If a text is claimed to be of divine origin then I expect to read something very unique. In the Bible I do, with the Quran I do not.

Fight those who believe not in God and in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who follow not the Religion of Truth among those who were given the Book, till they pay the jizyah with a willing hand, being humbled. (tr. The Study Quran)
— Qur'an, [Quran 9:29][86]

Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not behave according to the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and submit to it. (tr. Abdel-Haleem)
— Qur'an, [Quran 9:29][87]

Would not following those verses lead to exactly what I said about the 7th century conquests?

It's largely a commentary on Biblical and parabiblical traditions, especially Syriac Christianity which seems to be the reflect the environment from which it emerged.

What is, the Quran?

I'm saying that it doesn't refer to to the events you say it does and much of the tradition emerged later to explain aspects of the Quran which were not understood by even the earliest exegetes.

Well we have a problem. Assuming your were a Muslim meant the debate shares the common ground of accepted Islamic texts. Now that I know your not a Muslim there no longer remains a common ground on what is authoritative. It will be your arbitrary scholars verses my arbitrary scholars.

History is what it is, you have the sources you have. Clarity rarely exists in ancient history and can't be manufactured out of convenience.

Trying to piece it together though is what makes it particularly interesting to me.

Since I regard Islam as a false religion I have no reason to go beyond the point I have. However I believe Christianity is a true religion and so I have continued to study it past the point of necessity. Examples........ there is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure in ancient history, there was no biblical Uthman, the bible was copied without any central authority mandating what it should say, it was copied very often, was copied very early, and had texts that went missing a long time ago to be discovered a thousand years later, and the bible has been scrutinized more than any book in human history. The Quran isn't even on the same playing field.

Your sources were outdated and unreliable and don't really reflect modern scholarship which has changed significantly over the past 30 years.

That is like saying Robert E Lee's battle reports written within months of Gettysburg are outdated but some arbitrary books written by some random modern scholars accurately describe what occurred in 1863. The primary quest for historical studies is to find the oldest accounts possible, for a reason. I have no doubt that some times modern scholarship corrects contemporary eye witness accounts but on average the oldest texts are the most desirable. Textual criticism (especially concerning theology) are cyclical and geographical. For some bizarre reason the bible's greatest criticism occurred within the last few hundred years and primarily from Germany. You shouldn't reserve consent to a textual sample size as small as you are.

Read them if you want to learn more about the topic from a historical rather than theological perspective. It might give you a better understanding of why it is problematic to trust the traditional narrative you are often repeating uncritically.

I normally debate Muslims, and in that case the texts accepted by mainstream Islamic scholars are authoritative. If you do not believe Islam is from God then it does not matter if we disagree about what the best evidence is that demonstrates that. If we both have the same conclusions about Islam's ultimate source then why does how we arrived at that conclusion matter?

 

[Fire_Monkey]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

IMHO the best comprehensive examinations and diagnostics as to the veracity and accuracy of the NT on the alleged sayings of Jesus of Nazareth were obtained during the famous "Jesus Seminar" which was conducted by several dozen bible scholars.

Here is a link to explore that a bit more..........

Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

That is far too general a conclusion. You can't hand wave away every source I gave with a generality. It does not follow that testimonies from 200 years later must be wrong entirely. Especially since you seem to place a high value on works from contemporary times. Take your pick, either time dooms all testimony or improves it all, but not both and neither. Plus you must show the specific parts I quoted are inaccurate and why. Evidence and testimonial claims are not all in the same monolithic block, which is either all wrong or all accurate. I believe Islam is a false religion but even I won't paint it's texts in a brush that broad.

The biographies get more complete and more detailed the later they get, contain many obvious falsehoods and were not written to be objective history (which is a much more modern concept). I also consider it problematic that scholars didn't understand very elementary things yet the biographies have the most tremendous amount of detail which often seems to have been created specifically to explain parts of the Quran that were not readily understood.

Almost everything you say is less well supported that the night journey, and if you don't believe that then why do you take the rest uncritically just because it is not supernatural? Generally, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You also the modern sources are trying to critically reconstruct the old sources beyond simply taking them at their word, often using earlier sources than you do. When something was written is completely different to the age of the primary sources used, but you are treating them as being similar.

First you said what I claimed was a myth, then in the next paragraph you agree to everything I said. What you said is quite telling, you basically said that Islam and other conquests were similar. If Islam is similar to Alexander the great's Greece and Caesar's Rome, why should anyone think it was driven by anything except the tyranny which has driven other conquests? Islam claims to be from God, why does it look exactly like it was driven by anything but the same Greed that drove most other conquests?

I said the idea that they were given the option to convert was a myth. They weren't even calling themselves Muslims at that point, but 'emigrants or 'believers' and might well have been open to any monotheists joining with them.

Your view reflects the 9th C theological narrative which appears unsupported by 7th/8th C texts (see Hoyland)

That is like saying Robert E Lee's battle reports written within months of Gettysburg are outdated but some arbitrary books written by some random modern scholars accurately describe what occurred in 1863. The primary quest for historical studies is to find the oldest accounts possible, for a reason. I have no doubt that some times modern scholarship corrects contemporary eye witness accounts but on average the oldest texts are the most desirable.

As before, oldest texts relates to primary sources, a modern scholar using older primary sources is better than an older writer using later primary sources.

Modern scholars have access to more sources, some older from outwith the Islamic tradition (see Hoyland).

Older orientalists tended to treat the Islamic sources fairly uncritically also (in terms of history), modern methodologies have demonstrated the problems with this approach. The field has changed massively in the past 30 years due to the availabilty of new information

Well we have a problem. Assuming your were a Muslim meant the debate shares the common ground of accepted Islamic texts. Now that I know your not a Muslim there no longer remains a common ground on what is authoritative. It will be your arbitrary scholars verses my arbitrary scholars.

Balance of probabilities is mostly what history is about, not being 'arbitrary'.

I normally debate Muslims, and in that case the texts accepted by mainstream Islamic scholars are authoritative. If you do not believe Islam is from God then it does not matter if we disagree about what the best evidence is that demonstrates that. If we both have the same conclusions about Islam's ultimate source then why does how we arrived at that conclusion matter?

That's not my conclusion as it is not the answer to my question.

I've said from the beginning that I care little for theological debates as I see them as a separate discussion to history which is my interest. It's just like learning about the Romans, Greeks or Persians for me, and when I do this I'm not interested in whether Zeus actually exists.

My interest is what actually happened. Events rather than religious one-upmanship

 

[1robin]

The biographies get more complete and more detailed the later they get, contain many obvious falsehoods and were not written to be objective history (which is a much more modern concept). I also consider it problematic that scholars didn't understand very elementary things yet the biographies have the most tremendous amount of detail which often seems to have been created specifically to explain parts of the Quran that were not readily understood.

That reads contradictory to me. In the first par of first sentence you say the later the more detailed, in the second part you say they contain many falsehoods and are not objective. I gave you multiple sources of multiple types. Modern scholars commentary, a surah from the Quran, tarikh, and biography. You basically write off all of them by criticizing only early or late (I can't be sure which) biographies about Muhammad. You just can't shove all sources into a monolithic block and condemn them all like that.

Almost everything you say is less well supported that the night journey, and if you don't believe that then why do you take the rest uncritically just because it is not supernatural? Generally, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

The burden of proof for most supernatural claims is far greater than most natural claims. I need more evidence for claims about splitting the moon in two, than for one tribe attacking another.

You also the modern sources are trying to critically reconstruct the old sources beyond simply taking them at their word, often using earlier sources than you do. When something was written is completely different to the age of the primary sources used, but you are treating them as being similar.

I explained that I am almost always debating a Muslim and so I have used the source material they accept. Even as history early Islam is not that interesting, so I have not gone much further that the material Muslim's accept.

I said the idea that they were given the option to convert was a myth. They weren't even calling themselves Muslims at that point, but 'emigrants or 'believers' and might well have been open to any monotheists joining with them.

I will tell you just how bad it was. There are many stories of Islamic rulers (mainly in N Africa) who made so much money off the higher tax rates for non-believers they actually forbid conversion.

Your view reflects the 9th C theological narrative which appears unsupported by 7th/8th C texts (see Hoyland)

Again I debate Islamic history as it reflects upon the faith. As pure history it isn't remarkable enough to spend much time researching. I am an amateur military historian, but even in that context Islam's early years do not stand out as deserving much time reading about.

As before, oldest texts relates to primary sources, a modern scholar using older primary sources is better than an older writer using later primary sources.

I used the Quran, I used early sources, and I used a modern Islamic commentator, and even used a very modern secular (I believe) historian. You can't deny them all by picking on one.

Modern scholars have access to more sources, some older from outwith the Islamic tradition (see Hoyland).

What does outwith mean?

Older orientalists tended to treat the Islamic sources fairly uncritically also (in terms of history), modern methodologies have demonstrated the problems with this approach. The field has changed massively in the past 30 years due to the availabilty of new information

Again, I have pointed out over and over that I almost always debate Islam with Muslim and so I am familiar with the sources they accept. If Islam isn't a viable theology it looses most of the reasons to read further into it. I do not need to know the bore diameter of the cannon they hauled up to batter down Constantinople's walls down to rule out it's being divine revelation. Now if you want to discuss the history of the Peloponnesian wars, the Gallic wars, Alexander the great, Pizarro, Cortez, the revolutionary war, the American civil war, WW1, WW2, or the wars in the modern middle east they are things I felt compelled to research in a secular sense. Not early Islam, if early Islam is not a candidate for theological truth it has little appeal.

Balance of probabilities is mostly what history is about, not being 'arbitrary'.

You have yet to show that your source material is more probable than what I provided. You have claimed it was over and over, but you have yet to demonstrate it.

That's not my conclusion as it is not the answer to my question.

Ok, let's get this finalized, even if we can't conclude anything else. Which of the following is your position?

1. Islam is historically interesting to you but you do not consider it a candidate for divine revelation.
2. Islam is historically interesting to you but you do not have a position about it's divine origin.
3. You consider Islam divinely inspired but realize you can't demonstrate any reliability concerning Islam's divine origin using sources accepted by mainstream Muslims, so you prefer other more modern sourcing.

I've said from the beginning that I care little for theological debates as I see them as a separate discussion to history which is my interest. It's just like learning about the Romans, Greeks or Persians for me, and when I do this I'm not interested in whether Zeus actually exists.

I am held responsible before God as to how much secular history I have learned but I am accountable to defend my faith in God. I do however have great interest in military history just not so much about early Islam. If you choose from any of the subjects I gave above I would be far more interested in a purely historical and secular discussion.

My interest is what actually happened. Events rather than religious one-upmanship

The most profound subject man has ever considered (true or false) is theology and that includes history, philosophy, science, etc...... However for purely historical importance early Islamic history is far from a priority. Even Islam's scientific, medical, and philosophic contributions are more profound that it's military history. If you want to talk pure history pick from mankind's huge list of far more interesting empires, wars, or battles. I only have so much time, my educational priorities would be theology, philosophy, science, math, then the histories of the United States, Greece, Rome, China, Byzantium, Egypt, then at some point Islam's secular history. Islam is the second most popular religion, it isn't even close to the second most important historical empire. You do not seem to be set up to defend Islam's theological claims, and I have little interest in any specific Islamic historical event, but you seem knowledgeable about history. Can you not find more important historical events to discuss?

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is not what happened. Muhammad had forced (under threaten of violence) the Qurayza tribe to support him in his battles. He fought so often and against so many I can't remember who it was that he was fighting but in this case it wasn't the Qurayza. He was fighting someone when he called upon the Qurayza tribe to fight for him. Some agreed and some refused, he had those who didn't killed.

I have no idea what amount equals a paucity, do you? Regardless however much evidence there are for this event it is all on one side.

Sometimes there's insufficient evidence one way or the other to determine with certainty. Having examined the evidence that is my conclusion. I doubt if we would have enough evidence to convict Muhammad of this supposed crime in a court of law.

I wasn't discussing the rightful heir to Muhammad. I think it is a false religion and an immoral system, regardless of who should be running at a specific time. Your going to have to show me what "true Islam" is, how you know that, what verses you refer to, how you know they were corrupted, and what the verse should say, and how you know these things.

Lets turn that around Robin, and you show me the evidence in the Quran to support the caliphate? Then we could consider the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church based on the authority of Peter being the successor. If we are judging Islam by the Caliphate then we should judge Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church. See the problem?

To demonstrate that Islam is a false religion you need to prove this from the Quran or the established facts about Muhammad's life.

This link appears to explain the difference between Sha'i and Sunni quite well if you are interested.

Ghadir Khum Part 1

It is almost certain that figures in biblical history and the history of Islam have killed many people. I am simply saying that does not mean both are either justifiable or unjustifiable. You can't claim that all cases where a human killed another human must stand or fall together.

We are both making the same point in different ways.

That is exactly the standard we need. In no way can you show anything God commanded could even theoretically be wrong. It may be that it is hard for us to know whether God commanded an action or not, but that is the correct standard to use. God is not subjected to any moral standard beyond his own nature. Who could possibly sit in judgment over God, what standard could he appeal to?

We are agreed.

I agree that the crusades were immoral, what does that have to do with Christianity, especially the book of Joshua?

It certainly wasn't the New Testament that inspired the Crusades. Presumably it must have been the Old. Both were justified as 'Holy war'. One had the authority of God as revealed in the book of Joshua. The other the authority of the Pope who also 'believed' he had authority from God.

Louis IX, crusade and the promise of Joshua in the Holy Land

Christianity and violence - Wikipedia

What was necessary to establish Israel and defend it has nothing to do with events hundreds or a thousand years later. The covenant in place during the crusades was the NT not the OT. Once you give actual verses or specific events I can evaluate it in it's context, I cannot even evaluate events that occurred in one context being considered in another.

Although we can argue the OT covenant was obsolete based on the NT, that would apply more to OT laws and I'm sure historic battles fought in the name of God, where Divine assistance was provided would have been well remembered.

Because it is events so long ago its hard to find supporting documentation and that's the problem with examining history whether its Islam or Christianity.

Good to hear from you.

And you too.

 

[1robin]

Sometimes there's insufficient evidence one way or the other to determine with certainty. Having examined the evidence that is my conclusion. I doubt if we would have enough evidence to convict Muhammad of this supposed crime in a court of law.

1. Very very few claims across the board can be known to a certainty. Only things like I exist, mathematic, and logical laws are certain. In historical studies all conclusions lack certainty. Instead we try to determine what conclusion is best given the evidence.
2. The best possible type of testimony is referred to as hostile testimony. IOW if a persons friend admits to his faults it is more reliable than if a friend defended the person in question. Islamic sources from Muhammad's time up until our own time mention the battle of the trench.
3. I am not attempting to prosecute a dead man for crimes committed 1400 years ago. I am suggesting sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Muhammad was an extremely immoral person and that his "revelations" do not seem to have a divine origin.

Lets turn that around Robin, and you show me the evidence in the Quran to support the caliphate? Then we could consider the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church based on the authority of Peter being the successor. If we are judging Islam by the Caliphate then we should judge Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church. See the problem?

Which caliphate and what events carried out by that caliphate are you asking for surah which justified it? Peter was not the successor of Catholicism, it can be argued that he was the precursor for it, but even that is highly questionable. I did not mention the terrorism of the modern Islamic faith, I was speaking about events committed by it's founder. The Quran stands on it's own merits, the bible stands on it's own merits, and the traditions of each faith stand on their own merits. You can't lump everything together and claim they all stand or fall together. I have pointed this mistake out at least a dozen times so far.

To demonstrate that Islam is a false religion you need to prove this from the Quran or the established facts about Muhammad's life.

Only once you ask specific questions can I give specific answers. Do you want to discuss the action's of Muhammad and his contemporaries, the Quran, the accepted Islamic biographies, the accepted Islamic hadiths, it's accepted Tarikhs, it's later scholars? Then which specific events are under scrutiny?

This link appears to explain the difference between Sha'i and Sunni quite well if you are interested.

Ghadir Khum Part 1

It is not their differences that matter, it is the standards which lead you to accept one and reject the other that matter. What are they?

We are both making the same point in different ways.

That would depend on whether you are talking about Catholic tradition, OT prophets and leadership figures, what specific events, about Muhammad's actions, the actions of the leaders he appointed, the later Islamic traditions, the Quran, etc..... You need to be much more specific before I can agree or disagree.

We are agreed.

I thought you denied the very standard I praised as the best possible authority for moral events.

It certainly wasn't the New Testament that inspired the Crusades. Presumably it must have been the Old. Both were justified as 'Holy war'. One had the authority of God as revealed in the book of Joshua. The other the authority of the Pope who also 'believed' he had authority from God.

Louis IX, crusade and the promise of Joshua in the Holy Land

Christianity and violence - Wikipedia

I do not deny the violence in Christianity's past. I do not blame modern Islamic terrorism on Muhammad. I judge Muhammad and the Quran on their own actions or events. You do not judge a teacher by the students who defy his teaching, but by the ones that follow his instruction. The Quran's violent teachings abrogate Muhammad's earlier peaceful teachings. The bible is the opposite, it's earlier teachings about violence were replaced by Christ and the apostle's later teaching. I do not think the NT contains a single verse which justifies physical violence of any kind. The bible is also different because the OT and the NT are two distinct covenants which are radically different, given for different reasons, and where one totally replaced the other. If you look up abrogation in the Quran and biblical covenants you will see how different the ideas are. I also admit that those who claim to be Christians have pursued immoral goals by cloaking them in biblical justification, that is a condemnation of men, not Christianity.

IOW
1. The Islamic teachings which apply to everyone from Muhammad to Bin Laden easily justify violence.
2. If there is a single verse in the teachings which have applied to everyone from the apostles to me which justifies physical violence I am not aware of it.

Although we can argue the OT covenant was obsolete based on the NT, that would apply more to OT laws and I'm sure historic battles fought in the name of God, where Divine assistance was provided would have been well remembered.

Which events would be remembered, by who, and what is your conclusion from that? The OT recorded Hebrew and ANE history, bad, good, or indifferent. Any actual history would have stories of battles and wars in it, that does not mean the authors were justifying it, in many cases. You need to be more specific about your premise' and your conclusion does seem to exist at all in what you claimed above.

Because it is events so long ago its hard to find supporting documentation and that's the problem with examining history whether its Islam or Christianity.

I merely gave the battle of the trench as an example of events that suggest Muhammad far from being God's chosen instrument, was actually far more immoral and malevolent that most people regardless of their faith. However the total amount of evidence which makes that judgment the best conclusion for the evidence is inexhaustible. I can start from the first hours of Islam and pile up an insurmountable amount of evidence against Islam's founder, founding document, and entire history, if you deny that conclusion.

And you too.

Please be more specific and try to not lump anything that sounds similar into one monolithic block in the attempt to claim they all stand or fall together. Talk to you soon.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

Well, hell....(LOL-see what I did there?)...not even the staunchest and most rabid Christian apologist can deny that the writings of Jesus Of Nazareth from secular sources are incredibly brief. Very scanty. So limited as to make the dearth of them a truly logical problem for anybody who truly believes this man was God. Or even had divine powers.

Especially given the fact that he conducted his brief ministry in an area that was at the time occupied by the Romans, Who had their sphere of influence covering a very wide swath of the known world.

Also, and even more problematical for Christians, is the fact that NONE of these secular writings ever claim that JC was divine or performed ant miracles. The closest they come is that one of them...and I believe it was Josephus, who as a Jew, so barely a secular source...said that "...his followers attribute miraculous deed to him."

And we cannot of course turn to the Gospels, or even the Letters of Paul as objective sources for unbiased information on Jesus, as they all were believers, and had their own agendas. Biblical scholars have also know for a couple decades now that only about half of the Epistles originally attributed to Paul of Tarsus were actually and irrefutably penned by him. There is even compelling information that none of the Gospel writers even KNEW JC.

So at the end of the day all we can know for sure about Jesus was that he was an itinerant Jewish man who conducted a brief ministry around the times of 28-32 AD in Roman Occupied Palestine. He was somewhat of a philosopher, and no doubt a rabble rouser and political insurrectionist. It was this last action he was killed for by the Romans. His stunt at the temple with the money changers sealed that deal. It is written fact that Pilate was notoriously hard on Jews of that sort. The bit about him offering to free Jesus as a Passover bone is pure anti-Semite woo. There are NO records of Pilate ever doing that, and thus no reason he would acquiesce to so it in the case of JC.

An excellent book that captures the known life and times of Jesus, as well as the political climate in 1st century Palestine is entitled "Zealot" by the great Koran/Bible scholar Reza Aslan

Thanks...hope this helps.