Chili

No, as 'to be human' only means 'to be earthly' and therein an illusion who in Mark was the founder of the 'Jesus cult' denying the supernatural that occupies the story as occult, and so I can see why the author did not dare identify himself.

Net2004

pamela what is your opinion on the following analysis



..
Let me reiterate just a few actually well-known points about Jesus and the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were composed at different times and contain glaring discrepancies both in their narrative content and in their theological content. …

In the narrative parts of the four canonic Gospels, Jesus is depicted
almost exclusively as a doer of miracles and consequently they cannot be regarded as historical or biographical documents in any meaningful sense of these words, while the teachings that these Gospels put into the mouth of Jesus are, at least in part, theologically dependant on Pauline doctrine. They cannot therefore be seen as records of the actual teachings of Jesus, but reflect certain defined positions in the history of Christian doctrine.

…

Now let us take a look at Muhammad and the Quran. In contrast to the New Testament, the Qur’an is, on the whole, a book of consistent style and consistent theological content. Although the surviving Muslim sects (the Shi’ites, Kharijites, and those who eventually came to be known as Sunnites) separated from each other within a decade of the death of Muhammad, they all agree on the content of the Quranic canon. By contrast, the surviving Christian sects, all of which split off from Roman imperial Christianity at a very late date, not earlier than the fourth century, have different versions of the
biblical canon;

Muhammad would appear, at least in theory, to be a far more apposite
subject for historical inquiry than the founder of Christianity. The most
abiding and forbidding obstacle to approaching the historical Jesus is
undoubtedly the fact that our principal sources, the documents included in the New Testament, were all written on the hither side of Easter; that is, their authors viewed their subject across the absolute conviction that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God, a conviction later rendered explicit in Christian dogma. There is, however, no Resurrection in the career of Muhammad, no Paschal sunrise to cast its divinizing light on the Prophet of Islam. Muhammad is thus a perfectly appropriate subject of history: a man born of woman (and a man), who lived in a known place in a roughly calculable time, who in the end died the death that is the lot of all mortals, and whose career was reported by authorities who share the contemporary historian’s own conviction that the Prophet was nothing more than a man.

Christianity is hard to define, as there are many sects and
interpretations.I would say the Qur’an has more to say on the betterment of the Earthly position of Mankind in this world, while Christianity, as defined by the NT, leaves it up to the Hereafter.

In contrast to the miracle stories that make up virtually the whole of the narrative strand of the Christian gospels, the sirah, the traditional
biography of Muhammad, is realistic in the sense that it contains
virtually no public miracles, that is, miracles supposedly witnessed by
large groups of people. The sirah does, of course, record the private
miracle of Muhammad receiving the Quran from an angel. But from a
positivist, sceptical point of view it is possible to accept that highly
imaginative people in pre-modern times sincerely believed that they
received their knowledge through divine inspiration.

…

My conclusion is thus that Jesus is a biographically intangible figure
located in a very well documented historical milieu, whereas Muhammad is a biographically at least plausible figure located in a historical vacuum.

the title of the article is “New documentary texts and the early Islamic
state” and the idea is that wecould gleen a lot more from the graffito and texts in Arabic that have come to light in recent decades. also there is de Blois’ point that there are radical differences betrween the body of knowledge about early Islam and the body of knowledge about early Christianity. in the case of Islam, one is confronted with a very believable (from the secular point of view) narartivve in a place where historical historical knowledge is scarce, but in the case of Christianity, one is confronted with a very incredilous story in a place where historical knowledge is abundant. so different methods of critcism must be used.

I have already suggested elsewhere that the virtual absence of real
textual variants in the Qur’an is the result of a biographically
intangible figure located in a very well documented historical milieu,
whereas Muhammad is a biographically at least plausible figure located in
a historical vacuum.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.r...be0?scoring=d&

Toto

Net2004: parts of the above post appear to be quoting F.E. Peters' THe Quest of the Historical Mohammed

But your link references a long google group discussion.

It is not clear if "my conclusion" refers to you or Peters or someone else.

Please clear this up.

Pamela Spencer

The conclusion seems valid e.g "Jesus is a biographically intangible figure". However, a historically inaccessible figure does not entail non-existence. There are numerous figures across time and space that have existed (e.g Alexander the Great), but their corresponding memories and general characteristics have become warped with time (and in some cases, beyond recognition)---There remains an inherent human tendency to idolize great leaders (e.g Rama, Buddha, Jesus etc.), and the emergent Muslim community of Muhammad took a painstakingly preemptive approach to suppress excessive praise for the Prophet. The Islamic shahada [testimony] serves as a perpetual reminder that Muhammad was indeed a human being devoid of divine embodiment: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God".

One can extrapolate that there were probably different variations of shahada across time and space:

-There is no god but God, and Abraham is the Friend of God (Waliullah)

-There is no god but God, and Moses is the Speaker of God

-There is no god but God, and Jesus is the Word of God (Kalimatullah)

(alternatively)

-There is no god but God, and Jesus is the Spirit of God (Rooh'ullah)

-There is no god but God, and Jesus is the Messenger of God (Rasulullah)

-There is no god but God, and Jesus is the Sign of God (Ayatollah)

The testimony of faith for the Christians (e.g the shahada of Jesus) may have been philosophically problematic because it seems to necessitate higher-order thinking, and borders upon esoteric/mystical shades of meaning----A disastrously perfect formula for the impending idolization of Jesus Christ. Jesus was also a traveling/nomadic prophet, and different communities may have known him by different titles and names.

I digress, the point I was trying to make is that "miracles" should not confirm nor deny the existence of a human being (nor should it automatically confer divine status)---at most, it may contribute towards producing a mythological image of a person that may have actually existed historically.

Chili

Nice, you write very well and I have no problem with Mohammed being a 'human being' and in fact, he was far to human and was just a preacher and reformer with a passion, and that is evidence of what we call hell on earth today. Sorry to say, and I wrote you that in many different forms already.

To say that 'God has no being' (there is no god but God) flies directly in the face of Gen.1 and 2 where we, 'as [andrgyne] man' were created in his image and after that image were formed in Gen.2. Then in Gen.3 we were banned from Eden as human being now with a 'second identity' to which we must die to become 'man' again. Note that hu- is from humi- is humus = earthly to say that without the human condition we are heavenly if you allow me to posit heaven opposite to earth. So all that is wrong with us is our 'human condition' which is only conditional upon us as man created after the image of God throughout the ages, wherefore then a religion that claims to have saints in heaven must nessessarily be infallible as well, which now only means " in charge of destiny' such as the Freeman is in his own right (and this without religion too).

For this restoration we (males) must be 'born again' (they call it) as 'Son of Man' and therein are we Son of God, while females in their woman-ity are not and never were banned from Eden, and so this treshold does not exist for them, which is not to say that awakening does not exist for them but just not the crucifixion, who therein become fully God and Lord God and so in Lord God are the manifestion of God who is the essence of Lord God. I.o.w. it is not possible to be Lord God without your essence to be known to you . . . and so 'know yourself [and do as you please]' is true. We call them saints in heaven, or just the Freeman in the Church Triumphant that was called Elysium in Greece.

So to be that far aloof from truth, while yet being a reformer-on-fire for this unknowable idea of God constitutes hell on earth for us.

And I am sure not in favor of 'Jesus worship' as that belongs to Christian reformers who also want to die before something good can happen to them. I just want to point out that, just like Siddharta Gautama, we can be God on earth as well, and he was also just 'a Buddha,' but called 'the Buddha' in their evolution of the faith.

Chili

To note is that in Buddhism they also have the moment of enlightenment wherein the Upasaka as lay Buddhist becomes the Sotapanna as is the first stage towards realization. We may call this born again, I suppose, that they seem to do more than just once.

Then there is the Sakadagami as second stage that we may call 'spirit filled', maybe, as I am just showing transformation here as outsider, but see a kind movement in these progressive stages.

After that is the Anagami and then the final stage as Arahant who is free from 'rebirth.' Not sure why or how, but it shows progression towards the final end wherein they reach Nirvana.

This has nothing to do with good or bad people, but is a matter of destiny and for that at least we must be going in the right direction.

And do they have a Holy Book? Never heard of one. They have books and teachings, but not something that is Holy in itself.

Chili

Not sure if I should explain my term 'hell' to you, but if hell came crashing down when Jesus rose to heaven it would be obvious to say that from heaven hell is visible. This is the basis for the ironic statement that the saints in heaven are entertained by the folly of Christians down below, except that those in heaven have the mind of Christ (as does Buddha and his equal Tathagatas who are truth 'seers' both in Hinduism and Buddhism).

The same cannot be said for Christian reformers including Muhammad as you can read in this citation from above:

There remains an inherent human tendency to idolize great leaders (e.g Rama, Buddha, Jesus etc.), and the emergent Muslim community of Muhammad took a painstakingly preemptive approach to suppress excessive praise for the Prophet. The Islamic shahada [testimony] serves as a perpetual reminder that Muhammad was indeed a human being devoid of divine embodiment: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God".

For one, Hebrews tells us that testimony is not in force unless the testator has died (Hebrews 9:16-17), and it is not until after they die once (not twice), that they are judged and do not say . . . from which follows that a testamony already is evidence of deceit.

Jesus was not a political leader and not even a preacher but was just happy to get himself out of Galilee during this transitory stage in life, which is a distinct midlife event and should occupy not more then 42 months. In Rev.12 it is 1260 days and in Rev. 13:1-9 it is 42 months. To this duration 'in time' Luke' 13:6-9 gives the vineyard owner 'one more year' after bearing no fruit for 3 years when the evaluation was made. Then consider that Nathan came tumbling down from a fig and was said to have no vile in him.

There is a nice allegoy in Jn.5:1-9 where the man was sick for 38 years lying on his mat [that were his sins] next to the Sheep pool at Bethsaida waiting for the 'movement of the water' (there is no water in this pool), except that something (like reason) always blocked this movement until Jesus just told him to pick op his [sins] and walk away.

Later the Jews told him not to carry his mat [sins] on the Sabbath, and then in verse 14 Jesus tells him "Remember now that you have been cured. Give up your sins so that something worse may not overtake you" and become a saved-sinner instead . . . and that would mean hell for him as well.

Bottom line: there is nothing wrong with being cold as sinner, nor is it wrong to be set free from the concept sin, but it is just not good to be saved and at the same time remain yoked to religion now as saved sinner for another 40 years or more and still die nontheless.

youngalexander

Ibn Warraq has written extrensively upon the subject of Islam, and its origin. This interview is most interesting for an understanding of the 'obscure origins' of Islam.

The first half sets the background context and outlines the difficulties in arriving at an historical Muhammad. The second introduces some recent research into the Koran. For instance 'large parts of the Koran appear to be originally written in syriac and later (badly) translated into arabic' with results that account for much of its obscure nature.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/ro...e-origins.html

Duvduv

I have recently read through the two books Ibn Warraq edited. Unfortunately they are quite dense and very specialized, especially with regard to the variants in the language of Quran manuscripts.

However, what comes through as synthesized through Robert Spencer's book, is that since there is virtually no information about Mohammed in the Quran and does not appear prior to the hadiths of the 9th century and the histories starting with Ibn Hisham in the 9th century, we can see that there is no tangible information about the existence of Islam before the onset of the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad, or the existence of the man known as Muhammad.

This is not unlike the onset of Christianity after Constantine. Alot of similarities in the emergence of both in two different regimes that each had a motive, means and opportunity to create a religion to smooth over all the differences among the people of their empires.

Duvduv

Are any of the previous posters on this thread around, or has the thread died? Just wondering.