"God is bigger than Allah"

[Giancarlo]

Considering how many inconsistencies and errors there are in the bible, I wouldn't trust it even if hell freezed over.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, as for the problem of relying upon men, you touch on a point very near and dear to my heart. How do you know there existed a Communist revolution in Russia in 1917? Were you an eyewitness of said event?

Ahh, but there are pictures of the revolution. In fact, ther are all sorts of primary records that can be examined and interpreted. The same cannot be said of Jeshua. I have no doubt the man existed. But given that even the earliest work about him was written at least thirty years after his death, I would have to believe that the memories of men do not change, that men are not infallible.

In short, we rely upon authority for almost all that we know. This includes Christ. We believe in Christ not only because he is God, but also because of the Gospels, and how they are written.

I actually happen to find early Christianity fascisinating. While I'm not a scholar or the period, I might be described as an interested person. I'm currently reading Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels. So you'll know that I'm going to say that your awsertions are disputed by many scholars of the period. Since I'm not a scholar of the period, the best I can do is be truthful and say, I don't know whose argument and evidence is superior, but most of what I've read, even when I was a believer, pointed towards a later date than you claim.

Please, give me a plausible counter explanation that fits all the details for Christ's resurrection.

Someone stole the body. A bunch of looney cultists believed they saw their former leader alive and began telling people about it. Kinda like Elvis sightings. I don't mean to belittle your faith, but the human mind is funny and it tends to fill in details when given partial and fragmentary information, especially during times of stress. I could swear I thought I saw my cat around the house, just in the corner of my eye for a month of so after she died. That doesn't mean she was there. or maybe she was!

Friends, let me tell you the good news of the risen Annie!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We have very good evidence that Mark is based on an eyewitness to Christ, Peter.

The same can be said for Luke, who used a variety of eyewitness testimony to Christ to compile his Gospels, among whom likely included Mary who did see Christ.

So we have to accept that Mark faithfully write down what Peter said? So you're trusting Mark. You have faith in Mark, that Mark didn't misunderstand, mistranslate, add or subtract anything. The same goes for Luke, since I assume you don't accept the Gospel of Mary Magdelene.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ahh, but there are pictures of the revolution. In fact, ther are all sorts of primary records that can be examined and interpreted.

If you saw a picture of Christ, you would believe?
Secondly, the Gospels, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses counts as primary source material.

The same cannot be said of Jeshua. I have no doubt the man existed. But given that even the earliest work about him was written at least thirty years after his death, I would have to believe that the memories of men do not change, that men are not infallible.

Show me another historical event 2000 years ago with records dating only 25 years after the event.

No, the memories of one man is not infalliable, but show me where the resurrection could be completely distorted by not one, but 4 different men writing at different times.

"Form critics call into question the integrity of the disciples. The disciples had seen and heard Jesus. They had even been a part of his ministry. Yet, if the form critics are correct, they did not control the accuracy of the tradition...Is it conceivable that in its own discussions and disputes the early church would not have examined doubtful statements concerning Jesus' ministry? If the church, in fact, did not scrutinize such statements, why is there such close agreement as to the nature and details of that minsitry? A community that was purely imaginative and lacking in discrimination would have found it impossible to form a consistent tradition."

Someone stole the body.

That obviously took a great deal of thought, che.

Read the account. The Jews posted guards just to make sure the Christians did not pull out any hanky-panky. They placed a huge stone over the crypt.

even when I was a believer, pointed towards a later date than you claim.

How late?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Show me another historical event 2000 years ago with records dating only 25 years after the event.

There used to be this little thing called the Roman Empire. Perhaps you've heard of it?

No, the memories of one man is not infalliable, but show me where the resurrection could be completely distorted by not one, but 4 different men writing at different times.

"A community that was purely imaginative and lacking in discrimination would have found it impossible to form a consistent tradition."

And here I am reading about the other 20+ gospels that were rejected by Orthodox Christianity, precisely because they were inconsistent. Four outta four is pretty good odds. Four out of twenty four known doesn't seem so impressive.

That obviously took a great deal of thought, che.

The simplest explanations are sometimes the easiest.

Read the account. The Jews posted guards just to make sure the Christians did not pull out any hanky-panky. They placed a huge stone over the crypt.

Guards can be bribed.

How late?

Sixty years.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Nope. Because Arab Christians are Arabs who happen not to share the majority religion of their population. It's like the French Jews who say "Dieu" (or rather "D.ieu"). That's probably because the French conquered Jewish lands

"Arab" Christians are in fact not Arabs, but arabised original citizens of those grounds (with exceptions of some original Arab Christians expelled from Arabia, who settled somewhere in Iraq I think). They were definite majority of population for first centuries after Muslim conquest. By adopting Muslim - Arabic language, they adopted Muslim word for God, which does not mean it's the original Arabic word for an almighty God.
I don't see no contradiction between our claims. As Jews were inferior politically (because when it comes to number, it's less important in my view) group in France, they adopted French language, and with it - French for God.
In fact, Syriac for God is pretty similar to Arabic, the core of the word is the same - so perhaps indeed Allah may have had been the Arabic for Christian God before Islam as well. God knows.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
"Arab" Christians are in fact not Arabs, but arabised original citizens

This is nonsensical. They're not Arabs but they are Arabs. Sorry Charlie, but Arab-speaking people are Arabs, even if they can trace ther ancestry to the people who lived in the region befoer the Arab conquest.

[DinoDoc]

Why does any thread that mentions God morph into the same exact thread as the other religious threads we've had after awhile?

[chequita guevara]

Core argument?

[Az]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is nonsensical. They're not Arabs but they are Arabs. Sorry Charlie, but Arab-speaking people are Arabs, even if they can trace ther ancestry to the people who lived in the region befoer the Arab conquest.

They are arabs, since it's culture that matters.

OTOH, Christian Arabs are generally less arab than muslim arabs.

[Ben Kenobi]

other 20+ gospels that were rejected by Orthodox Christianity, precisely because they were inconsistent.

Thanks for the most excellent point. Clearly they only accepted the four gospels because they were consistent with available testiomony.

Accept no substitutes.

There used to be this little thing called the Roman Empire.

How can an event be an Empire?

Guards can be bribed.

How could the Christians pay them better than the Jewish Sanhedrin?

Secondly, this does not explain the wrappings. Surely if you steal the body, you will take the wrappings along with you.

[Heresson]

This is nonsensical. They're not Arabs but they are Arabs. Sorry Charlie, but Arab-speaking people are Arabs, even if they can trace ther ancestry to the people who lived in the region befoer the Arab conquest.

So, it's the same nation that lives in Morocco, Sudan or Syria?
And Irish and Scottish people are Englishmen?

[Evil Knevil]

No, but North Irish, central Scottish and most of England, barring Cornwall have Anglo-Saxon ancestry

Sudanese are not part of the Arab world.
Moroccans are a mixture of Berbers and Arabs
Syria, mostly Arab.

[chequita guevara]

Sudan is part of the Arab world. The northern part of the country and the government are Arab. The Southern part is Black and Christian and Animist. Other than that, an Arab from Morocco is as much an Arab as one from Yemen as is one from Sudan as is one from Syria, etc. Sure, there are variations on dialect, but people can change nationalisities, cultures, etc. Most of the people in the Middle East are Arabs, with a few Berbers and Turks thrown in. Even the Assyrians consider themselves to be Arabs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thanks for the most excellent point. Clearly they only accepted the four gospels because they were consistent with available testiomony.

What amazing logic! They only accepted the four Gospels because they were consistent with available testiomony. Given that they were the available testiomony, that's a circular argument. They're right because they argree with themselves.

There was plenty of testimony in the other Gospels as well. Many of them agreed with others. For example, the Gospel of Thomas has testimony that is consistent with what is witten in the Gospel of Mary Magdelene. Does this consistency then mean that they are true? The Gospel of Truth agrees with The Apocalypse of Peter. Should these then be taken as truth?

It's easy to say you have 90% consistency when you are only looking at four texts. When you change that number to 20+ it drops to only about 20% consistency.

How can an event be an Empire?

They had lots of events, many far better documented than Christ.

How could the Christians pay them better than the Jewish Sanhedrin?

You don't understand the concept of extra money, do you?

Secondly, this does not explain the wrappings. Surely if you steal the body, you will take the wrappings along with you.

Not necessarily. It depends on what I'm up to. If I want to create a mystery, I think I'd leave the wrappings. But I don't remember anything about the wrappings anyway, but then I think I never read one of the Gospels (can't remember which one).