A Muslim historian on Jesus

Read any good books lately?
Post Reply
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

A Muslim historian on Jesus

Post by Lausten » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:09 pm

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-july-17-2013-reza-aslan

I am getting so tired of hearing about how literal interpretation of the Bible is recent. If it was, why did the earliest church fathers write about allegorical interpretation? Why was Aquinas questioned for doing it? This book in this interview sounds interesting from a historical perspective, but some of his statements make me wonder.

I first heard this "literal is new" thing on Speaking of Faith probably from Karen Armstrong and whenever I hear it, I almost never hear an explanation. So, I dug into it and found that a few hundred years ago people could finally safely say that the Bible had contradictions without getting killed. These were Christian and Jewish scholars. The scientific method was just developing at the time. I think where it gets confused is that science created a new meaning for the word "true". So if you say "someone from the 12th century didn't think of the Bible as "scientifically true", that's because they didn't even know the word "scientific". They most certainly believed in a literal resurrection.

But true, fundamentalism and literal interpretation was a reaction to this change in culture. But that avoids the question of whether or not they got it right. That is, when they came up with the rules of fundamentalism, did they match the early church? If you try to match with anything before Constantine, then you have several choices. Historians can’t agree on what Christianity was then, because early Christians had not yet agreed. Looking at 4th century Byzantine Christianity, I’d say the fundamentalists pretty well nailed it.

What I don’t like about this is it gives non-fundamentalist Christians a pass. It says that non-fundamentalist Christianity is somehow okay or more historically accurate. But that leaves too wide of an opening. The problem is you still have people attaching anything they want to an event from 2,000 years ago that we know very little about, including whether or not it actually happened. That’s as fundamentally wrong as anything the Westboro Baptist Church does.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

oomnopah
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: A Muslim historian on Jesus

Post by oomnopah » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:34 pm

Read "Zealot", lots of background on what was going on in Palestine at the time. The more I read about that time the more I think that "Life of Brian" was dead on.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

Re: A Muslim historian on Jesus

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:48 pm

Non-fundamentalist Christians don't need a pass from you.

There was never a time when most people feared being killed for saying that the Bible contains contradictions. Jews have always said that Christian interpretation of their texts is mistaken, and though antisemitism has always existed, Jews typically weren't killed for saying so. Jews weren't killed during the Holocaust for this reason for example. Islam is all about saying that literal interpretation of the Bible, by both Jews and Muslims, is mistaken and contradictory, and Muslims have never killed themselves for saying it.

Faith is called "faith" precisely because historical or scientific evidence does not substantiate the belief. Why would I care what sort of comforting fairy tales people tell themselves? Scientisticians imagine space elevators and terraforming Mars too, and I don't care about their faith either.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: A Muslim historian on Jesus

Post by nmblum88 » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:47 am

Martin Brock wrote:Non-fundamentalist Christians don't need a pass from you.

There was never a time when most people feared being killed for saying that the Bible contains contradictions. Jews have always said that Christian interpretation of their texts is mistaken, and though antisemitism has always existed, Jews typically weren't killed for saying so. Jews weren't killed during the Holocaust for this reason for example. Islam is all about saying that literal interpretation of the Bible, by both Jews and Muslims, is mistaken and contradictory, and Muslims have never killed themselves for saying it.

Faith is called "faith" precisely because historical or scientific evidence does not substantiate the belief. Why would I care what sort of comforting fairy tales people tell themselves? Scientisticians imagine space elevators and terraforming Mars too, and I don't care about their faith either.


There is not an accurate sentence in the above:
There was never a time when religious heresies weren't tantamount to threatening the life of a king in terms of relative significance and the warranting of punishment..
Certainly the Hebrew bible is full of intimations of heresy as being worse than all other crimes and worthy of a death sentence.
Out of a mere 10 Commandments, fully 2 or 20% are devoted to the implacable and non negotiable demand to love god above all else, and to avoid taking his name in vain (blaspheming).
That does say something about keeping a civil tongue in your mouth when talking about god, in any other way than adoringly, uncritically.

And while it is true that the Jews of Europe were not slaughtered in the first half of the 20th Century, in the name of religion, it was the religion, in fact the Christian religion with it's insistent reference if not roots in the deicide for which Jews were deemed -unquestioningly so - the guilty instigators, that made the horrendous act of chilly, malice aforethought, mechanized slaughter possible.

And would make it possible again tomorrow.
No Jewish kid was chased down the streets by Christians kids screaming : "why do you have so many accountants?"
Not at all.. they chased them, and in certain places in the "Christian " world, still do, crying "Christ killer!!
So there IS that : once I've killed your god, why SHOULDN'T I be killed for it: an eye for an eye?
But there are also , and codified in the Hebrew Bible… as well as the Q'uran, suggestions that the punishment for heresy is without question, death….
Even Monty Python is aware of that.
And while I don't know what your experience of Muslim religion is, but mine is that while there are certainly nations and communities that are less than Orthodox (that is biblical literalists), the ones that are, do not permit heterodoxy, and have the options of following Allah's requirement to punish blasphemers and heretics to death…
(Thieves only have their hands chopped off.)
But that aside, it is also true that Muslims have, in the course of internecine strife, actually slaughtered each other in the name of being true believers versus heretics.
And most famously, the remarkably progressive Muslims who gave the period of the Moorish domination in Spain its reputation for tolerance and scholarly and scientific achievement, were forced out of their Arabian homelands, because they were made non grata for their iconoclasm.



NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: A Muslim historian on Jesus

Post by nmblum88 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:34 am

A-number wrote:I went to the link and it turned out to be Jon Stewart's show. I love that guy by the way.

I was just going to comment that, unless a Mulsim Experiences Jesus enough to convert to Him, what exactly could they have to say about Him? nothing.


My cousin was bragging about how her husband converted to islam (a white guy, what a tragedy!!!). I responded that the entire Koran was copied from the bible to the exception of 5 to 7 % (as I read both and she didn't). And that %age was cooked to give the fake impression that the Koran has its own feet and it does not, it's feetless. Furthermore, all muslims have to say to entice others to switch to their camp, is "the Koran speaks about Jesus and we speak about Mary, and David and Solomon, and, and.". If they do. The Koran should also mention, as the bible does, what those very prophets said about the coming of the Messiah : Jesus. And what one needs to do in that relation. Why does the Koran not mention the single thing about that detail? That's the 64, 000 $ question. Needless to say she did not utter a single sound afterward!!!



I have no idea of what you are talking about… although I'm sure the frailty is mine and not yours.…
But I thought I would mention, just for the hell of it, that while Islam does recognize Jesus as a prophet, Muslims are not waiting for a Messiah, were never even looking for a Messiah, and thus the subject of Jesus as their Messiah (or NOT the Messiah) has simply never come up for them.
Islam, Muslims, seem quite content that there is no other god but Allah, and they appear to like having Muhammed as his prophet.
They aren't asking for more.


NMN
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

Post Reply