> Regarding the Muslim scholars, I don't really
> understand what Muslim scholars you refer to.
Simply that Muslim scholars wrote a lot about the characters of the New Testament. In fact they wrote about many of the same events and wrote a lot more about Mary than one can find in the Christian writings after the Council of Nicea got done gutting them.
> The Quran was written by Muhammad and it states
> that Jesus was not crucified.
Mohammed didn't actually write his book any more than Jesus wrote his. But you are correct. According to Islamic scholars Jesus was not crucified. So why is one account taken as the word of god and the other as heathen nonsense. And I dare you to look at the preceeding sentence and figure out to which I refer in either case. The point being that the views are equivalently correct, equivalently incorrect, or none-of-the-above.
> It also states that Allah took Jesus up to
> heaven,
Every religion has everyone going there. That should be no surprise.
> but earlier it talks of the day of Jesus'
> death. It doesn?t seem to have a coherent view.
That is incoherent? Everyone dies before ascending to heaven. The question is how they died and under what circumstances.
> You said, 'Always trust the independent news
> source more than the one with a vested
> interest.'
Well it certainly makes more sense to trust an independent news organization when trying to figure out he-said/she-said between political parties so why not hear too?
> The whole of Islam relies upon the idea that
> Jesus was not God's final revelation, but that
> Muhammad is. This doesn't seem very
> independent. I would think that Muhammad,
> writing 600 years later, is much less to be
> trusted than Paul, who wrote Galatians only
> twelve years after Jesus' death.
Ah but there is a huge difference. By the time we get to Galatians at 600 AD we have not a single copy of the original text in the original language. We essentially know nothing upon which we can base a conclusion.
> Now as someone who had tried to stamp out
> Christianity by assisting the stoning of
> Christians, Paul must have undergone something
> significant to end up by being willing to die
> for his belief in Christ.
And every person that stored by beaches on DDay did the same. This argumetn does not impress me.
My father might have been pleased with the honor
but I am not so easily manipulated.
Perhaps revenge from being treated as he was. But then we also need to ask whether the events you describe actually took place. What is the source? How reliable is it? Is it believable that someone who "knew for a fact" what the facts were could so easily be swayed first one way then the other. Heck the Senior Senator from Arizona wasn't that
weak and he never shared bread with the Son of God. So think about Paul from the standpoint
of reason. Are his transformation reasonable given the knowledge he had? And if they are
reasonable whose to say he wouldn't have flip-flopped yet again given his mental instability.
> So if I'm going to trust anyone it would be
> Paul who was near the epicentre and not
> Muhammad, who pointed to no evidence for his
> assertion.
But Paul is mentally fragile at best. Read your own description of what he did.
What he turned into though is undeniable ... a true believer. Take look around at other true believers. Look at the people that drank Kool Aide with Jim Jones. Want the rest of this sordid list?
> You also said that 'The writers of the Talmud
> didn't write about Jesus Christ.?
> Now the writers of the Talmud were no friend to
> the Christians but:
4th century. I meant at the time of Jesus's life. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
> Of the three sources you mentioned: the Islamic
> scholars, the Jewish writers and the
> Christians, there is only one that denies
> Christ?s crucifixion, and that is the one you
> want to accept. To me it seems to be the most
> distant and least trustworthy.
Au contraire. There is no belief in Judiasm of Jesus Christ being anything more significant than any number of other prophets. He is just one more ... not the son of God, not someone that has a split-personality problem with the holy spirit. Not one who counted for enough to even warrant a single passage in the Torah.
But lets return to the top of this missive. You make a point that the Islamic texts are inconsistent. The reality is that ALL texts are inconsistent: Especially the Christian ones as I have pointed out with Chapter and Verse.
So you are trying to argue as to why you should believe one inconsistent version whereas I am arguing that none read as anything remotely approaching the level of integrity and consistency I would expect from a divinely inspired work ... unless it is divinely inspired fiction.
