Apostates of Islam

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Heresson


Isn't there a letter of Peter?
I may be wrong.

There are actually 2 letters of Peter.

One would think that somebody like yourself would know at least the names of all the books in the New Testament.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


True, but there are his letters. Well, letter, since the second one is often regarded by theologians as a forgery.

That might have something to do with the fact that it was written about a century after the death of Christ...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
Even today, in Poland, You call cousins brothers with "stryjeczni" addition, but I've heard it without it as well.

Irrelevant. I asked you to substantiate the claim that this is the most logical context for the Biblical passages. I could care less what happens in Polish.

There's no proof that these were Mary's actual children.
Just possibility.

No, there is no proof they aren't her children, and given the context of the passages, the most logical conclusion is they are her children. There is zero reason to believe, based on the Bible, that Mary remained a virgin for life. Give me one passage that alludes to that. Just one.

Otherwise, the contortions you have to go through to explain away his siblings are ludicrous. And unneccesary.

I'll give you the most explicit:

Matthew 13:55-56, in which the neighbors wonder where Jesus gets off with all this preaching: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"

It makes little sense to prefer a meaning of "cousins" or "friends" in this context, since the entire reason the people are saying it is that he is being "uppity" compared to the rest of his immediate family.

[Heresson]

That might have something to do with the fact that it was written about a century after the death of Christ...

Prove it.

I asked you to substantiate the claim that this is the most logical context for the Biblical passages

Of two possibilities, I pick the one I like the most. Just like yourself.
And Polish example is not irrelevant. It's analogic.

The quote is interesting, but it still just hints that they were his real brothers.
I'll ask a priest.

[Hueij]

Everyone ackwongledges there was aperson anmed Jesus and Roman, Jesish, Christian, and other sources have all agreed the man existed and that his basically said what the bible said he said.

Care to back that up? I'm curious about those sources you speak of because I never could find them. And "everyone acknowledges" doesn't necessarliy make it so...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That might have something to do with the fact that it was written about a century after the death of Christ...

Well, that, and the fact that it's written in a totally different style and manner than the first letter.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
Of two wqual (You haven't told us why do You consider your version more logical) possibilities, I pick the one I like the most. Just like yourself.
And Polish example is not irrelevant. It's analogic.

I did, you just ignored it. Read again.

You've offered nothing but hand-waiving dismissals without any evidence of your own.

How the two explanations are "equal" you've yet to explain. Mine takes the meaning of the words at face value. Yours takes a less-common meaning that is at odds with the context for the purposes of substantiating a doctrine that has utterly no Biblical support. You're conclusion is only "logical" if you're approaching it with a prejudiced view beforehand (that Mary was forever a virgin).

I ask again--find me one thing in the Bible that substantiates Mary's perpetual virginity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

For god damned sure he is. The New testament is composed of "The Gosipol according to..." name the saint. In which each tells his testamony of what Jesus said and what he believes that means for Christians.

The only "Gospel of Peter" is non-canonical. There is no canonical Gospel of Peter.

There is no debate about the existance of a historical Jesus.

Um... actually there is.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence

A large number of commentators and writers lived in the Jewish and Roman world in the first and second centuries. Most of the writings of the ones from the first century have been lost; however, their surviving works would collectively fill hundreds of volumes of text. The earliest large body of evidence comes from Tacitus. Of these writers only six are claimed to have written anything at all about Jesus—Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, Philo, Lucian, and Tacitus. Supporters of Jesus' historicity claim that most of the writers showed no interest in events in the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, so that it is unsurprising that little is written about a local religious leader. However, those who oppose this claim argue that many of the commentators commented on other Middle Eastern events, and many, especially the geographers, travelled to the region and that reports of miracles might have been expected to arouse more interest.

Certain supposedly lesser figures are mentioned more in surviving texts than Jesus. For example, Josephus frequently mentions John the Baptist, but mentions Jesus only twice, once only by name and the second in a passage whose authenticity is disputed. Jewish records make occasional mention of a person or persons called Yeshu but this figure is placed at different times and has a very different character to Jesus. The name Yeshu (which came to us through the Greek as Jesus, and more directly as Joshua) was a fairly common name in first century Jewish territories. Roman records, and those of Josephus, refer to a series of troublemakers, including many who claimed to be Messiah. However, Jesus is not mentioned explicitly amongst them, although others such as Simon bar Kokhba, Theudas, Menahem ben Judah, and an Egyptian who had a large following of 30,000, are mentioned.

Many scholars consider it odd that a man of such significance as Jesus should be missing from historic texts and records, since lesser figures are, unless, that is, Jesus didn't exist, or was insignificant. If Jesus had been resurrected, and ascended into heaven, they consider that someone amongst the commentators and record keepers would have thought it worthy of writing down. Christians proclaim that this evidence is precisely what became the New Testament, wheras others dispute this, stating that one would expect at least a handful of non-Christian witnesses.

---

That is simply not true.

No, it is true. The Koran has very few laws within it. No more than the Bible, especially the Old Testament, has. Most of the laws come from Sharia or Hadith. Have you ever heard of an Islamic state saying they have law from the Koran, but NOT from Sharia?

how should nonbelievers be treated (anwser: They should be killed).

And if that was the case, then why were unbelievers accepted into the Islamic state and only forced to pay a special tax? After all, Hindus, which aren't even people of the Book, where allowed to live and prosper under the Mughal rulars.

[Az]

What was it about, can You remind me?

Jews are canaanites, I said. You said: no.

[Ramo]

Yeah, but it was a pretty poor one.

Not my fault if you're too dense to get the point.

There are other facts we know only of one source...

And in which situations do every other contemporary source contradict it?

And why be suprised that Muslims didn't want to repeat stories that weren't showing what they wanted to see?

It's seen as the primary biography by the powers that be. Obviously, they didn't mind repeating it. However no other contemporary source mentioned that account.

Exactly that's why You can not dismiss Ibn Ishaaq because He was the only one to have written about it.
Also, it I recall, it's the oldest chronicle...

No, the oldest Chronicle is the Qur'an. Ishaq ostensibly wrote his Chronicle a century later.

And yet You have to find some proof that the story is not true.

That every other contemporary source contradicts this story...

Name a few with dates of creation. There's Sirat Muhammad, but I think it's a bit older.
And the very source that tells us about the attacks You dismiss

The Qur'an is a century older than Ishaq and doesn't mention this event. Umar was a couple decades after Ishaq (except we only have a secondary source for Ishaq, so Umar may be a couple centuries older than Ishaq), which doesn't mention the event. Then there were Waqidi in the next century and Tibari a little afterwards, again neither mentioning the event.

Did it happen? Maybe, maybe not. The most rational guess is that it didn't happen. Of course, if you have an axe to grind with Islam and want to paint the religion as intrinsically intolerant, you might have an ideological reason to say that it did happen.

[Boris Godunov]

Everyone ackwongledges there was aperson anmed Jesus and Roman, Jesish, Christian, and other sources have all agreed the man existed and that his basically said what the bible said he said.

No, they don't. Some scholars believe Jesus is a composite character based on many "messiahs" that were around between 180 BC through the time of the NT. Others think he was a fiction made by Paul to act as a mouthpiece for his philosophical views.

There is no corroborating first-hand evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible.

[Heresson]

My reply was that according to the book(s) I've read, they are not. But I don't consider myself able to discuss it fully, so I'm just stating my knowledge

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Heresson


Prove it.

2 Peter uses the word "scriptures" when speaking of Paul's writings (not done till 2nd century)

2 Peter mentions widespread persecution of Christians, which did not occur until the reign of Domitian

2 Peter mentions the problem of a failing belief among Christians in the imminence of the second coming, something which did not occur until the 2nd century

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Heresson
My reply was that according to the book(s) I've read, they are not. But I don't consider myself able to discuss it fully, so I'm just stating my knowledge

No, you're just stating your belief. You have no knowledge.

[Hueij]

Maybe we should start a new thread about there actually being a historical Jesus?