JC wasn't crucified, says 1500-year-old bible

[Confused Ape]

By the way, Ape, based on your earlier post you might find this interesting.

Thanks for the link because I do find it a very interesting idea. I particularly like the possibility that all those virgins are really grapes.

And the howling swirls and the rocks fly!!!

Academics are always howling and throwing rocks at each other.

[downbeatplumb]

Page was unavailable what does it say happened was he sent home after a telling off?

[Minimalist]

Robert Spencer relies heavily on Luxenberg for his "Did Muhammad Exist."

Fascinating book and his segment on the diacritical marks and Syriac was magnificent.

[Confused Ape]

Robert Spencer relies heavily on Luxenberg for his "Did Muhammad Exist."

Fascinating book and his segment on the diacritical marks and Syriac was magnificent.

Have just read some reviews of it. We'll never know what really went on, though, unless somebody invents a time machine.

[Ksa]

The Quran mentions in Surat An-Nisā'[4:157]

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."

I guess these fellows had that Bible in their possession. The concept of God sending his only begotten son to die for mankind's sins on the cross is completely idiotic, pulled out of the ass. Nothing can save a man from his sins except not sinning in the first place. In Christianity, you can kill people and rape women because Jesus died for your sins and so it's paid for.

Christians say that if you do that, you're not a true christian. I say why not? If someone invites you to a restaurant and tells you that all food is paid for, but then, he tells you not to have pork, not to have beef, not have desert or wine, it's not really paid for is it? It would make Jesus a dishonest idiot.

If Jesus died for my sins on the cross I can sin all I want. I can sin now also!

[Minimalist]

All of this stuff ties together with Spencer's primary thesis: That the Eastern Roman Empire - xtian fanatics that they were - persecuted heretical groups and pushed them outside the empire.

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

The Qur'an has a docetic or gnostic Christology, viewing Jesus as a divine illuminator rather than the redeemer (as he is viewed in Christianity).[9] However, the Islamic docetism is not focused on the general life and person of Jesus or the Christ. In Islam "the Christ" (al-masiH) is not generally viewed as distinct from humanity nor a special spirit being as in docetism or some gnosticisms. Islamic docetism focuses on a denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. Sura 4:157–158 reads:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.[25]

The Qur'an was compiled in the mid-seventh century AD (around 650 CE), corresponding to the period when docetism was still commonly accepted and taught among some Christian sects.

Spencer, of course, holds that the koran was a late 7th century work.

[Confused Ape]

The Qur'an was compiled in the mid-seventh century AD (around 650 CE), corresponding to the period when docetism was still commonly accepted and taught among some Christian sects.

Spencer, of course, holds that the koran was a late 7th century work.

The Quran is supposed to have been revealed in stages over the course of 26 years. So, just start the first stage in 650 CE and gradually add more over the years depending on what's needed at any given time. When you think there's nothing else to add, compile all the writings into the finished version. Your successors can then tell people that the compilation was made in 650 CE.

On the other hand, maybe some of the writings were older than 650 CE and they got included because they were useful.

[ThomM]

1 - The christ MYTH fails to fulfill the requirements IN THE BIBLE for the messiah to begin with - and it could not have actually done that for a number of reasons - all in the bible. Among them - he was to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem - which could not have happened because the temple had not been destroyed until after his supposed death. The bible also states the messiah would be a human of the line of David - and the christ - with no human blood father could not fulfill that.

2 - There are too many holes in the end of the life of the christ in the bible to be true. Among them - Pilate and Herod never found him guilty of a crime for which crucification was allowed - ie a Traitor - a Pirate - or an Enemy of the Roman state (HE was not considered to be that powerful) Pilate and Herod would have killed all of the Jews who argued - instead of turning the christ over to them. THE Romans did NOT return the bodies of the crucified - they were left on the cross to be scavenged by animals. The Romans did not crucify thieves - they sent them to the Arena. (HE was claimed to die crucified next to a thief)

Add to that - all of the things that do not agree in the bible -
1 - What were the christ's last words on the cross - so called eye witnesses do not agree
2 - Who went to see the open grave and who/what did they see - the stories may well have been of different people and places.


Sorry - but this was the golden age of rome - and Rome had laws - and followed them. This story simply has too many contradictions to be true.

The story of the christ is a MYTH -= a legend put together by a number of different people who wrote the bible - added and added more and more exaggeration (miracles?) that have no mention in the historical record. There remains not a single document - mention - writing - inscription - that can be dated to the time of the supposed christ - that even mentions his name - and YET - according to the bible - he was of wide reknown - Multitudes gathered where he spoke - even the Romans supposedly knew of him (Although they needed a rat to point him out).

Yet - the historian Philo - who actually lived in Jerusalem at the supposed time of the christ - not a mention. Justus of Tiberius - who also lived at the same time - and in Galilee as well - failed to mention him.

But this is supposed to be an almighty god come to earth - there should be LOTS of proof of his existence - yet NOT one thing from his own supposed time - NOTHING.

The romans did not crucify the christ - he never actually was a real person
THe claim is that he was both god and man - but if he was a god - he could not die anyway. It is nonsense

[Minimalist]

The Quran is supposed to have been revealed in stages over the course of 26 years. So, just start the first stage in 650 CE and gradually add more over the years depending on what's needed at any given time.

Yeah - but then they also claim that Muhammad was dead by 650 so that would seem to be a contradiction. Doesn't matter though. They simply ignore all evidence to the contrary and insist that what they have now is EXACTLY like they say it is from the start.

Fanaticism.

[Confused Ape]

Yeah - but then they also claim that Muhammad was dead by 650 so that would seem to be a contradiction.

You're right - it wouldn't have worked.

I was led to something interesting from reading this review of the book - Review of Did Muhammad Exist?

The earliest account that can reliably be taken to refer to Muhammad is a chronicle by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, dating either to the 660s or 670s but containing material that sharply diverges from the traditional Islamic accounts: thus he has Muhammad "insisting on the Jews' right to the Holy Land -- even if in the context of claiming that land for the Ishmaelites, acting in conjunction with the Jews" (p. 32).

I looked Sebeos up and found there was another reference to someone called Muhammad in the the wikipedia article.

Non Muslim Sources

There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria, that mentions Muhammed. This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel accord to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines.

The references are to the Arabs of Muhammad having a battle in 634 CE. So, there could have been a war leader named Muhammad who would have been very surprised to learn he was a prophet who died in 632 CE.

Sebeos was writing the chronicle at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs was fresh. He knows Muhammad's name and that he was a merchant by profession. He hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation.[44]

Muhammad, the merchant, who claimed he'd had a divinely inspired revelation might have been very surprised to learn he had a military career.

I've just had a silly mental image of the afterlife. Two Muhammads amd a Galilean preacher are discussing the religions they were supposed to have founded and saying things like "What a load of rhubarb".