rhutchin

I've seen a lot of conjecture and speculation but nothing that means anything.

bacht

Then you've got the harmonization disease: contradictions in the surface meaning of the text only appear to be contradictions, when in fact there is a way (on the part of the reader) to reconcile such differences

This has been a problem for over fifteen hundred years, especially for people who can't read the original Koine.

rhutchin

We have the claim by Muhammed that he preached to the Jinn. Is there an independent witness to this?

We have Jesus healing the man with a withered hand. A man named Luke independently researches the events surrounding Jesus and reports on what he found.

Both Jesus or Muhammed had motive to write of their exploits in order to advance their reputation. Had Jesus written the gospels, as Muhammed wrote the Qu'ran, they would be suspect. We have different people writing about Jesus. For comparison, we should have different people writing of Muhammed and what he did. Had one of them, in the course of describing what Muhammed had done also included the account of Muhammed preaching to the Jinn, it would seem more likely that he had done so.

rhutchin

Is this going anywhere or is this a bacht opined, rhutchin opined exercise?

spamandham

There are obviously no witnesses to it, independent or otherwise. Words in an ancient book filled with magic and obvious fantasy are not the same thing as reliable witness. However, you've discarded a common sense approach such as this in regard to the Bible, and so are stuck having to pretend you are open minded about other similar nonsense.

The man you call Luke, explicitly tells us what he knows was handed down to him, and nowhere claims to have been a witness.

Luke 1

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

And even if he had claimed that, why should we believe him? It's our job to try to determine if the fantastic really did happen, or if people thousands of years ago merely claimed that it happened. These texts were written in a superstitious age. Even Josephus - deemed to be a reliable historian by many - reports absurdities that certainly didn't happen.

People also have motive to write of the exploits of those they call 'Christ' in order to advance their reputation. Why do you not suspect the Gospel writers, when they would personally benefit from such writings as well, by increasing their own repute among their peers, and that of their sect above competing sects?

This is silliness beyond silliness. Jinn don't exist. 4, or even 100 writings claiming to be eyewitnesses to it wouldn't change a thing.

SeekingKnowledge

It still sounds like pretzel logic to me Rhutchin... Course your too busy avoiding good questions to answer mine back a couple pages ago..

Good luck with that, I'll keep watching and laughing..

rhutchin

Because of the volume, it is not unusual for me to miss comments. Give me the comment number or recycle it so it shows up in the current page. I like good questions.

Stephen T-B

"No physical evidence other than the explosive rise of Christianity beginning in the first century and not through the use of coercive methods as Islam relies on but in spite of the oppression of those who followed the new religious sect." (rhutchin)
I wonder if the "explosive rise of Christianity" might have had something to do with the happy fact that it was adopted by the Romans, the greatest political, economic and military power in the regions where it was adopted?

Again off topic, but regarding the effectiveness of prayer, rhutchin informs us that his god doesn't help people who do not ask for its help, and that when they do, it isn't obliged to help them.

And the result?

Why not try praying to your tea pot? If you escape the earthquake with your life then hey! The tea pot answered your prayer. If you didn't, then too bad - it had no obligation to save you anyway.
So God=tea pot.

As to many of the stories about the birth, life and death of Jesus, I wonder if rhutchin can help us with the matter of how they got into the Bible?
For instance, the accounts of his birth...who gave out the original story of the Immaculate Conception?
Mary?
And why should she be believed?
Who gave out the original story of the Three Wise Men? Or their visit to Herod? Did they keep a journal which someone found?
Or the shepherds?
How can anyone know for certain that these tales weren't fabicrations?
And who was it who recorded Christ's early visit to the Temple and his conversation with the pharisees? Did this 12-year keep notes?
I don't suppose rhutchin cares to ask himself these questions - and frankly I'm not surprised.
And - back on topic - does he and his co-believers ask why the Book of Revelation demands to be taken seriously?
If he hasn't, perhaps I can?

rhutchin

Common sense should recognize context. Muhammed presupposes the existence of a god through whom things that we would describe as magical or fantasy can occur. The Bible does the same thing although with a different god.

That God exists can be viewed as magical or fantasy, but that does not mean that God does not exist or cannot exist.

spamandham

I was referring to Jinn in this case, not any god. Jinn are obviously mythical beings, so Muhhamed could not have preached to them. It wouldn't matter if there were four witnesses, 10, or 100. The claim is so outrageous, that no amount of eyewitnesses is sufficient.

The same is true for the healing of a whithered hand, or the raising of someone from the dead. These things just don't happen, and there is no reason to believe there was a time when they did. Four ancient texts by unknown writers of unknown pedigree are simply not enough to overcome the standards of evidence required for such outrageous claims. You would not accept crap evidence like that for similar outrageous claims from any source outside the Bible. You and I both know that, whether you are willing to admit it or not.