Spirituality
18 Nov 08
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasHe is mentioned in American and British sources too!
I didn't take Jesus as an example here, becase he is mentionned in roman sources as well.
There aren't any Roman sources that give extra credit to the existence of Jesus. There is plenty of evidence that early Christians existed, which is probably what you are referring to.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFrom the article:
Germany's leading Muslim scholar says no ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html
... interesting stuff.
"it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged"
I always find it interesting how whenever someone questions the existence of Jesus, the immediate response is "therefore the whole Bible is a forgery and it cant be true that all those writers were lying".
People often cant seem to fathom the possibility that myths and stories arise without intentional forgery.
If I said Adam did not exist that hardly is equivalent to calling Genesis a forgery.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by PalynkaI think the reaction of the German authorities is extraordinary. He's been punished for free-thinking within a free-thinking culture. The patronising message is obvious: Muslims cannot think for themselves.
Again you quote someone, but completely avoid what he said and merely speak with yourself.
Hopeless.
Bosse: It's a sad day when political correctness seems to trump scholarship. His arguments should be addressed, not simply stifled.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by ahosyneyYes. However we're forced to judge on a balance of probability, because there's no absolute proof of Mohammad's existence.
No Muslim can say that everything written about Prophet Mohammed is correct. No , there are many writings that are false and lies. But early Muslims did that filtering. Not by destroying the false witting, but by reporting the history of each person who shared in transferring the information. So that any researcher can examine the source of information and determine its correctness.
I believe that Socrates, Jesus and Mohammad all existed -- on a balance of probabilities.
But my question for you today is this -- what do you have to lose by doubting Mohammad's existence, considering that you worship God, not Mohammad?
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think we have discussed this before, somwhere in some Forum. Yes there are records in Rome of a troublemaker in the Palestine area at he time of Jesus. But I don't remember the exact source. So there are definitley sources proving the very existance of Jesus. Not the he is son of some god, though.
He is mentioned in American and British sources too!
There aren't any Roman sources that give extra credit to the existence of Jesus. There is plenty of evidence that early Christians existed, which is probably what you are referring to.
There are no American nor British records from the same time as Jesus walked around. I suppose that you were joking there.
Oh, here I found something in wikipedia:
"Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
19 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasJosephus is the source in question -- a very questionable one on this particular matter, as wikipedia can enlighten you.
I think we have discussed this before, somwhere in some Forum. Yes there are records in Rome of a troublemaker in the Palestine area at he time of Jesus. But I don't remember the exact source. So there are definitley sources proving the very existance of Jesus. Not the he is son of some god, though.
There's simply no incontrovertible contemporary historical evidence of Jesus' existence.
Tacitus was writing in 116 --not a contemporary source. Besides which, he talks about 'Christus' -- which wasn't Jesus' name but a title (meaning 'Lord'😉 given him by Christians after his death.
19 Nov 08
Did Muhammed exist? Well, ask Foreman. He'll tell you. YEAH!
Or like he said: Swing like a bee and do the butterfly, or something like
that.
I feel goofier than usual today. I wonder if not the toxic levels are
unusually high today around here.
🙄
What was the question again?
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have previously challenged anyone making the claim to produce the 'Roman sources' and it is usually followed by silence.
I think we have discussed this before, somwhere in some Forum.
Yes there are records in Rome of a troublemaker in the Palestine area at he time of Jesus. But I don't remember the exact source.
There are records of trouble makers all over the world. Unless you can provide the source for scrutiny so that we can at least see if it is referring to the particular troublemaker in question, it remains a non-source.
So there are definitley sources proving the very existance of Jesus.
What? Where do you get that conclusion from? A source you don't remember mentions a trouble maker and now you believe the existence of Jesus is proved?
There are no American nor British records from the same time as Jesus walked around. I suppose that you were joking there.
No I was not joking. Your sources are not from the same time a Jesus walked either. I challenge you to show that your sources are more likely to be accurate.
Oh, here I found something in wikipedia:
"Tacitus .....
As I thought, a source from over 100 years after Jesus' death which basically reports the beliefs of early Christians. The existence of early Christians and their beliefs is not under dispute.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually the message is probably "lets not offend the Muslims for our own personal safety".
I think the reaction of the German authorities is extraordinary. He's been punished for free-thinking within a free-thinking culture. The patronising message is obvious: Muslims cannot think for themselves.
19 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCompounding arrogance (the obverse of condescension) with hypocrisy (let's support free thinking except when it endangers our interests).
Actually the message is probably "lets not offend the Muslims for our own personal safety".
But that's politics for you.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI seriously doubt it's because of fears about personal safety. It's more about sweeping under the carpet the failure of the project (which was politically motivated and backfiring).
Actually the message is probably "lets not offend the Muslims for our own personal safety".
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOh, thank you. Roman sources? Yes. Contemporary? No.
Josephus is the source in question -- a very questionable one on this particular matter, as wikipedia can enlighten you.
There's simply no incontrovertible contemporary historical evidence of Jesus' existence.
Tacitus was writing in 116 --not a contemporary source. Besides which, he talks about 'Christus' -- which wasn't Jesus' name but a title (meaning 'Lord'😉 given him by Christians after his death.
The same Wikipedia source tells that the non-existance of Jesus is not a new thought. See"Jesus as myth" and "Jesus myth hypothesis". Always learning something new, don't we? 😞
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSeriously? That's the question? I don't see why not. The concept should
Is a Muslim allowed to question the existence of Mohammad and still claim to be a Muslim.
always be more important to the believer than the actual prophet. For
instance, who really believes that a relatively tiny little bugger like
Muhammed could possibly beat up Foreman? I mean, really?
Still, we accept it, because it's the idea that matters. I don't think it's
totally unfair to say the same about religious beliefs. Now, whether or
not any of the figures in whatever religious scripture you pick up existed
or not, the message stays the same. And if you believe in that
message, then the question of their actual existence become a
matter of trivial proportion (nice to know but not necessary for the
pursuit of The Truth).
(HA! That's kinda funny.)
But I can't speak on behalf of Islamic followers. They obviously feel
different about it. Again, I have a sneaky suspicion I've lost the topic
here. 😕
Oh! Oh! Oh! No I got it. It doesn't matter what I think. 😏
🙄
Uh, I mean, Muslims have to decide what it takes to be a true follower of
Islam.
Rant, rant, rant. Seems to be all I'm capable of. Anyway, I believe
that eventually, Islam will mature as Christianity is in the process of
doing ever so slowly. Its followers willing to think more critically about the
figures surrounding the deeper truth of the message; the deeper truth
that is hard to question even if you're a non-believer.
Thank you! Thank you! I'll be back next year. Hu-uh!
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by JigtieErm, why do I remember Foreman as being a giant in comparison to
Seriously? That's the question? I don't see why not. The concept should
always be more important to the believer than the actual prophet. For
instance, who really believes that a relatively tiny little bugger like
Muhammed could possibly beat up Foreman? I mean, really?
Still, we accept it, because it's the idea that matters. I don't think it's
tot ...[text shortened]... f you're a non-believer.
Thank you! Thank you! I'll be back next year. Hu-uh![/b]
Muhammed Ali? My head is a truly mysterious thing sometimes. 😵
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf64ZCYVcEI