rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/25/84)
> Did Mohammed rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus Christ did. > [KEN NICHOLS] To which a Muslim might reply: Did Jesus rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Mohammed did. Of course, to someone like Ken (or the Muslim), the difference between the two statements is obvious: HIS (Ken's or the Muslim's, respectively, assuming a male Muslim) statement is OBVIOUSLY the correct one. How does HE know this? It's based on found inner knowledge and personal experience? Ask why the "other HE"'s statement is incorrect, each HE would say: "What he thinks he believes is simply based on incorrect assumptions and faulty reasoning, whereas what *I* believe is really true." So much for the veracity of subjectively obtained "knowledge". > My pastor is an ex-catholic, and he can tell you that the things above could > have been true. He saw things such as these in the Catholic Church Nothing like unbiased opinion and objective knowledge in forming opinions about the universe... :-( -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/30/84)
> > [KEN NICHOLS] > > Did Mohammed rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus Christ did. > [Rich Rosen] > To which a Muslim might reply: > Did Jesus rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Mohammed did. I doubt it. I rather think that a Muslim could take you to Mohammed's grave, and tell you the body is still there. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/02/84)
>>> [KEN NICHOLS] >>> Did Mohammed rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus Christ did. >>[Rich Rosen] >>To which a Muslim might reply: >>Did Jesus rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Mohammed did. > I doubt it. I rather think that a Muslim could take you to Mohammed's > grave, and tell you the body is still there. [BICKFORD] My recollection was that Mohammed was supposed to have ascended into heaven from the rock that is now the site of the Dome of the Rock. I'm no expert so I could be mistaken about Islamic beliefs. But, more importantly, the actual example chosen in the analogy is irrelevant. Let's say we were discussing the comparison between Jesus and Whoopy Franqueezi, the nephew of Ubizmo who was sent to earth to give Ubizmo's message, who drank some Mexican water, and who rose from the dead while he was still alive. "Did Whoopy rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus did." "Did Jesus rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Whoopy did." You may say "Ahh, but you're just making that Ubizmo stuff up as you go along!" ("How dare you think that!!") Does having made-up things already written down in advance make it more correct that making it up as you go along? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Or do some documents simply *say* that Jesus rose from the dead? -- "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/03/84)
Rich, are you really trying to tell us that Islam claims that Mohammed rose from the dead, and that this is a central feature of their religion? I have never heard of such a claim, and I really seriously doubt that there is one. If you plan to base your argument on such a gross misrepresentation, you can't really expect us to take it seriously. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/05/84)
Rich says, > Did Jesus rise from the dead? Or do some documents simply *say* that Jesus > rose from the dead? Most of human history is written down in documents. I guess we can't believe any of those documents either. So we must not know anything about history. Why study it then? Why try to learn from past mistakes in history? It could all be a lie. As far as I know, the Bible is the most historicaly acurate, and well documented books on the earth. If it doesn't have any credibility, then either does any other historical document. -- Ken
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (11/05/84)
Charley Wingate (umcp-cs!mangoe) says: > Rich, are you really trying to tell us that Islam claims that Mohammed rose > from the dead, and that this is a central feature of their religion? I > have never heard of such a claim, and I really seriously doubt that there > is one. FYI, Islam does not claim that Mohammad rose from the dead. But the Shi'ite sect of Islam (the minority sect living mostly in Iran, Iraq, and Jordan) claims something similar about their 12th (and last) Imam. He disappeared (died) and re-appeared again and was in communication with a small circle of his followers. Finally he disappeared for good and will come back again to save the world from an anti-christ-like figure and will lead the world to Judgement Day. The point is not to say that the Shi'ite claim is any more (or less) valid than the Christian claim, it is only to say that it exists. H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-7473
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (11/06/84)
> > Did Jesus rise from the dead? Or do some documents simply *say* that Jesus > > rose from the dead? > > Most of human history is written down in documents. I guess we can't believe > any of those documents either. So we must not know anything about history. Why > study it then? Why try to learn from past mistakes in history? It could all > be a lie. Not too bad of a question. Why believe in Ceasar and not in Christ? Well, first of all, I'll grant that it seems likely that someone named Jesus did exist. It's much easier to believe that such and such a Roman emporer did something mundane than it is to believe that someone walked on water ( or insert your favorite miracle.) Also, there were several hundred years of human history where a very politically powerful entity, which had a vested interest in maintaining the divinity of christ, and which was known to be totally unscrupulous (remember the crusades?), was the main repository of the records which survive today. Is it any wonder that we doubt the accuracy of those records? Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/07/84)
[Ken Nichols] > As far as I know, the Bible is the most historicaly acurate, and well > documented books on the earth. If it doesn't have any credibility, then > either does any other historical document. Judging from your first sentence, you must be VERY proud of your ignorance. :-) Credibility of a document comes from support from independent sources. And beware of the fallacy of composition. If one or more parts of something are true, that doesn't mean the whole thing is true. Consider the hypothetical O'Haran religion of the year 4000 AD. Their sacred text is "Gone with the Wind". There is an enormous amount of corroborative evidence for the book. The revolutionary war took place, with many of the historical figures of the period mentioned in the book. But did Rhett really exist? He MUST have really left Scarlet, because there is no burial ground with their bodies side-by-side, as was the custom. You HAVE to look elsewhere to establish credibility of a historical document. The only property a historical document can have intrinsically is consistancy. Without bringing up whether the bible is consistant, consistancy does NOT imply accuracy, honesty, truth, or credibility. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/08/84)
> > Did Mohammed rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus Christ did. > > [KEN NICHOLS] > > To which a Muslim might reply: > > Did Jesus rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Mohammed did. > > [Rich Rosen] Do Muslims say that Mohammed rose from the dead? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (11/08/84)
In article <289@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: > >Rich says, > >> Did Jesus rise from the dead? Or do some documents simply *say* that Jesus >> rose from the dead? > >Most of human history is written down in documents. I guess we can't >believe any of those documents either. So we must not know anything >about history. Why study it then? Why try to learn from past mistakes >in history? It could all be a lie. > >As far as I know, the Bible is the most historicaly acurate, and well >documented books on the earth. If it doesn't have any credibility, >then either does any other historical document. >-- >Ken If this is as far as you know about history or historical study, remind me not to take your history course. Let us start with an old example. Julius Ceaser's autobiography is merely a book. Standing alone, there is no particular reason to believe even the broadest facts, such as his invasion of Gaul. However, we have other evidence that J. C. did, in fact, invade Gaul. We have corroborating texts from both allies and enemies, we have extant monuments, we have expectable consequences (such as French being a Latin-derived language, or evidence of subsequent Roman rule of Gaul). In short, if you were to claim that J.C. did NOT invade Gaul, you would have to explain all this in a way which is more probable than the current explaination. Since the questions of authenticity have been directed towards the New Testament, please either come up with the equivalent of the above extra-Biblical sources or stop saying it is historicaly acurate and well documented. If you seriously wish to support your statement that it is THE most historically accurate, etc., book, I highly recommend that you read, say, Jaworski's or Dean's Watergate books, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", or, maybe, the Oxford English Dictionary, to name a few. A much higher percentage of specific statements are referenced to indpendent texts in these (and most modern history) books than the Bible. Ken Arnold
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/08/84)
In article <289@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: >Most of human history is written down in documents. I guess we can't believe >any of those documents either. So we must not know anything about history. Why >study it then? Why try to learn from past mistakes in history? It could all >be a lie. > >As far as I know, the Bible is the most historicaly acurate, and well documented >books on the earth. If it doesn't have any credibility, then either does any >other historical document. One MAJOR problem is the there is no real corrborating evidence for the Bible. In most circumstance you can find multiple independent versions of the same story in history, or in latter history there will be newspaper accounts, film, radio, TV or even Usenet articles that allow researchers to attempt to piece together an unbiased and objective account. In the case of the Bible, all you have is the Bible-- there is no corroborating proof that helps prove its objectivity except the faith of those who believe it. Which doesn't, of course, make it wrong, just harder to PROVE it is right. I've been studying the Greek and Roman pantheons recently. I find it interesting that for every major myth in those pantheons we can find at least two and sometimes half a dozen authors that tell that story including scholars such as Ovid, Virgil, Euripedes, etc... That tells me that there is a MUCH greater chance for the Greek myths to be unbiased truth than the Bible. Anyone want to go sacrifice a lamb? (This, BTW, is a joke. An honest to GLOS joke. Please don't take this seriously. much) chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
vek@allegra.UUCP (Van E. Kelly) (11/08/84)
In article <344@mhuxt.UUCP> version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxt.UUCP allegra!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxr!mhuxv!mhuxt!js2j js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> > Did Jesus rise from the dead? Or do some documents simply *say* that Jesus >> > rose from the dead? > > Not too bad of a question. Why believe in Ceasar and not in Christ? Well, >first of all, I'll grant that it seems likely that someone named Jesus did >exist. It's much easier to believe that such and such a Roman emporer did >something mundane than it is to believe that someone walked on water ( or >insert your favorite miracle.) Also, there were several hundred years of >human history where a very politically powerful entity, which had a vested >interest in maintaining the divinity of christ, and which was known to be >totally unscrupulous (remember the crusades?), was the main repository of the >records which survive today. Is it any wonder that we doubt the accuracy of >those records? > >Jeff Sonntag >ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j Just a minute here. Not to put down your honest skepticism, but I suggest you might want to look into a little more of the history and preservation of the N.T. mss. While it is true that groups within the Church of Rome during the Middle Ages did a fair amount of fancy footwork with manuscripts, (as Erasmus found out the hard way) the primary mss. for modern N.T. research date from well before that period, as Jeff Gillette has recently pointed out. Also, the influence of Rome outside the European continent proper (both political and theological) was somewhat spottier than you suggest, and not all the mss. in question are European. I second Jeff Gillette's recommendation of Metzger's book as an excellent source on this subject. Somewhat more accessible (though more definitely "slanted" to a conservative viewpoint) is F.F. Bruce's little paperback "The N.T. Documents -- Are They Reliable?", and also his "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside The New Testament", available at most well-stocked religious bookstores and church libraries. Among the "popular" treatments of these subjects, these have the virtue of at least being "unsensationalistic" -- not trying to rewrite history to fit the latest (half-baked) theories. Van Kelly (allegra!vek) AT&T Bell Labs Murray Hill, N.J. MH3d418 The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, in case anyone thought they did.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/09/84)
[Ken Nichols] >> As far as I know, the Bible is the most historicaly acurate, and well >> documented books on the earth. If it doesn't have any credibility, then >> either does any other historical document. Nonsense. The bible isn't history at all; it's a statement of theology. There is precious little outside verification of ANYTHING in the Hebrew Bible, and huge tracts of it (for instance, the entire Book of Job) are clearly just stories intended to illustrate some point about man's relation to God. It's quite clear that anything which represents itself as having occurred before the reign of David was either made up out of whole cloth or was passed on as oral tradition for many centuries. THe New Testament is just as bad. Much foolishness written about the Gospels starts with the premise that they are biographical. More nonsense. The ease with which Matthew and Luke rearrange and elaborate upon Mark's text belies any notion that the authors thought of their works as biographies. The Acts of the Apostles is full of evidence that Luke bundled a number of Paul's visits to a location into one or two. We also mustn't forget to note that stylistic evidence in the letters attributed to Paul indicates a number of authors. The Bible way be an impotant religious document, but history it ain't. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Ubi caritas et amor, deus ibi est.
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (11/10/84)
>>As far as I know, the Bible is the most historicaly acurate, and well >>documented books on the earth. If it doesn't have any credibility, then >>either does any other historical document. >One MAJOR problem is the there is no real corrborating evidence for the >Bible. In most circumstance you can find multiple independent versions of >the same story in history, or in latter history there will be newspaper . . . >interesting that for every major myth in those pantheons we can find at >least two and sometimes half a dozen authors that tell that story >including scholars such as Ovid, Virgil, Euripedes, etc... That tells me An article in National Geographic a couple of years ago (Dec 82, I think) pointed out that the account in Exodus explains Moses leading his people into the desert rather than along the coast to avoid running into the Egyptians again. This puzzled Biblical scholars AND archeologists ... who were the Jews going to run into? The article then described the finding of Egyptian fortresses along the coastal route -- fortresses that would have had large armed garrisons. JUST EXACTLY THE REASON THAT MOSES LED HIS FOLLOWERS INTO THE DESERT! The Bible (both Jewish and as ammended by Christians) represents the most studied, researched and preserved work of mankind. It should not be surprising that those events for which evidence is discovered are eventually found to have been described correctly. The preservation of the Jewish Bible and the cultural integrity of Judaism through several millenia is one of the wonders of history. Where are the Romans of Imperial Rome -- where are their writings? Where are the writings from the interior of Africa? Only in India and regions of China do we find anything near the cultural continuity and preservation. What about the earlier accounts in the Bible ... the ones that could be considered ``myth''? Many of them (like the Flood) ARE paralled by religious accounts of other peoples who lived in the middle east. And the Creation account? It is (so far as I know) unlike any other. It gives us God creating ``space'', then E/M radiation, then the earth ... . I would be interested in knowing (if anyone knows) what the Parsi (Zarathustrians) writings say about the Creation. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/12/84)
Actually, Mark, the reason given in the Bible for Moses leading his people into the desert is NOT that there are Egyptian fortresses elsewhere that they might run into. It is that there was this large pillar of fire that said "Hey! You guys! Over here!" -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/12/84)
In article <41@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Actually, Mark, the reason given in the Bible for Moses leading his people >into the desert is NOT that there are Egyptian fortresses elsewhere that >they might run into. It is that there was this large pillar of fire that >said "Hey! You guys! Over here!" The two explanations obviously are contradictory and can both be true. And besides, everybody knows that pillars of fire ain't stupid. Charley Wingate
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/13/84)
> Actually, Mark, the reason given in the Bible for Moses leading his people > into the desert is NOT that there are Egyptian fortresses elsewhere that > they might run into. It is that there was this large pillar of fire that > said "Hey! You guys! Over here!" > -- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center > ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K > uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, > or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax > > "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are > but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." > Liber AL, II:9. Sorry to disagree. The Bible states as the reason: (Exodus, somwhere in the 13th or 14th chapter, Idon't have the source at my side ) that G-D led the people away from the Philisteens (P'lishtim)because they were too close and if the Israelites (or Jews, whichever you prefer) saw an army they would run back to the security of ( their masters in ) Egypt. Therefore, He led them into the wilderness ( the translation from the original hebrew is not an exact one but it tells the story ). Eliyahu Teitz. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
mounira@garfield.UUCP (Mounira Gad) (12/10/84)
| | > > Did Mohammed rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus Christ did. | > > [KEN NICHOLS] | > | > To which a Muslim might reply: | > | > Did Jesus rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Mohammed did. | > > [Rich Rosen] | | Do Muslims say that Mohammed rose from the dead? | -- | [Paul DuBois] Anyone who would even suggest that muslims believe that Mohammed rose from the dead obviously doesn't have the foggiest notion about what Islam is. Mohammed is believed by muslims to be a prophet -NOT A GOD- who simply had a message for man about how people should live their lives in order to produce maximum order on earth. Also Islam is big on the fact that there is only ONE GOD ie. the claim by Mohammed or any of his followers that make him anything more then human (If he had risen from the dead) would go against the basic premise of Islam. One cannot draw a parallel between Islam and Christianity when it comes to the crucial point of why we believe. Mounira Gad.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (12/14/84)
<.......> Being raised in a Christain church it was made quite clear that Christianity was superior to other religions because only Jesus had come back from the dead. However, after reading "The Autobiography of a Yogi" by Yogananda I discovered that there are indeed other such claims about ressurection. FYI Dave Trissel {seismo,ctvax,gatech,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet