sidewinder

Islam teaches that Jesus did not die on the cross. It teaches that he escaped death on the cross and appeared to his disciples alive. The problem with this teaching is that it's most likely wrong. One of the few solid historical facts we probably have about Jesus is that he was killed on a Roman cross. So if one teaching of a religion is wrong, does it make the religion false entirely? I believe that it does because in this case Islam claims divine (perfect and true) revelation from a supernatural being.

Orpheous99

What first hand accounts do we have that Christ even existed in the first place?

sighhswolf

Thats a very good question sidewinder.
Every single organized religion claims to be the
"True" representation of gods word on earth.
The only true conduit to the creator.
But the faiths use different texts as guides for it's followers. In recent months, the PC language
centers around the concept that most all religions
worship the same god, just in different ways.
This concept is only a ploy to try and defuse a potentially extreme and violent backlash between religious sects and is not reality.
It is either "wishful thinking" or "purposeful
deception" to espouse the concept that the god all the various faiths worship is the same, and only the messenger is different.
There is absolutely no basis in fact for the above
statements, Allah is Allah, Jehovah is Jehovah,
Zeus is Zeus etc.
It is understanable why these PC statements are being forwarded and presented to the population.
But being politically correct, does not make it truth.
I simply must agree with Don Morgan, if religious texts are as touted the words of an all powerful supreme being, then every single word must be "truth"....it should be clear and concise in it's presentation, without errors in historicity
without contradictions (because christians say themselves that god can never contradict himself)
and it would contain no false or misleading information.
Clearly NONE of the leading religious texts are or have ever been totally clear and without error
in their presentation and/or interpretation.
In my opinion, to utter one false word, one unclear image, one deception of any kind would disqualify the text as being inspired from a divine source of all things good and moral.
And clearly if there was only one god, who had inspired the writting of some guide book for attainment of some heavenly reward in the afterlife, there would be only ONE BOOK, and not a multitude of different texts.
The simple fact is that all these texts were written by men, supposedly inspired by the divine
creator of the universe.
Now my problem is that if this god was powerful enough to appear to Moses, give him written tablets in stone and announce his existence and
demand the worship of the hebrews, then how come he let mankind write his guide book for him?
Because the book contains the mythological history
of one demographic group, does that automatically
make it the guide book for all of mankind?
The books themselves with all of the contradictory information, serve to disqualify
religion in general, as truth, and relegate the concept to mythology and legend.
I'm sure the christians out there will disagree with my conclusions, but the fact remains that
there is a "KJV Bible" A "Catholic Bible" "torah"
"qu'ran" "Book of Mormon" and thousands of different versions of the same supposedly divine inspired texts.
Which one deserves the label of "TRUTH"?
Wolf



<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Ojuice5001

Here's something good about Islamic teaching regarding Jesus. It weakens the Trilemma argument. Many Christians who propound the Trilemma would have us believe that only a godless atheist could fail to see that the Trilemma is a good argument. At least, when they examine alternatives to Jesus's divinity, they stick to those proposed by atheists. But here you have hundreds of millions who believe in a god similar to the Christian god, and who say that Jesus was a very good man, but not an incarnation of God--the very theory that the Trilemma argument starts by belittling. Past, I love an irony like this.